PRATIBHA SAWHNEY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the above mentioned writ petitions is to the notifications dated 5.1.2012 (Annexure P-7) and dated 10.7.2012 (Annexure P-9) under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act'), respectively.

(2.) The assertion of the petitioner is that over the land of the petitioner, the subject matter of acquisition, the petitioner has set up a unit for manufacturing of cosmetics after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities, therefore, the said land should not be made subject matter of acquisition. It is also pointed out that the land in question was also part of the notification dated 18.3.2008 under Section 6 of the Act for the purpose of 150 meters of periphery road i.e. from Dwarka Township Delhi to Kherki Daula, Gurgaon but the same was released from acquisition but now again the same has been made thesubject matter of acquisition for the same purpose. It is contended that the road alignment has been changed in the year 2012 so as to accommodate the land of other land owners.

(3.) On 5.12.2012, when the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court, we directed the learned State Counsel to produce the record pertaining to road alignment, the purpose of acquisition. Today, Ms. Monga, has produced the akshajra, pointing out the road alignment and also the land which is now subject matter of acquisition. A perusal of the plan shows that the land acquired is in tapering position. The structure No. 3 in CWP No. 23989 of 2012 and in structure No. 2 in CWP No. 24193 of 2012 are at the broadest area of the land sought to be acquired. The tapering position of the acquisition of land and the plan produced shows that the acquisition is to provide straight road alignment.