VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these seven cases impugn the notifications dated December 21, 1998 and December 20, 1999 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Copies of these notifications have been placed on the record of C.W.P. No. 6318 of 2001 as Annexures P-8 and P-11 respectively.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Shailendra Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners in these cases. He has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that the public purpose as disclosed in the impugned notifications cannot be achieved as the land which had been acquired on earlier occasions for development of residential and commercial area was in fact available. The authorities had used it for a different purpose. It indicates that no land is needed for residential and commercial use. Secondly, it has been contended that the action of the respondents in not exempting the land of the petitioners is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the land of Maruti Udyog (a service station) and certain other industrial units has been excluded from acquisition in the notification under Section 6 of the Act. On these two grounds, learned Counsel submits that the impugned notifications are liable to be set aside.

(3.) MR . Jain contends that the notifications suffer from the vice of discrimination. He contends that a strip of land belonging to 'Maruti Service Station' has been excluded from the notifications. Similarly, he contends that the land belonging to M/s. Atam Surgical Centre which is manufacturing surgical equipment has been excluded. The action of the Government in not excluding the land of the petitioners, the counsel submit, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.