ARVIND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2735, 2749 and 2870 of 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 2767 of 1982. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE State of Haryana issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on September 18, 1973 expressing its intention to acquire land for a public purpose namely the development and utilisation of land measuring 238. 35 acres as industrial area for Sectors 31, 32, 35 and 36 in Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Controlled Area. This Notification was allowed to lapse. Another Notification was published in the Gazette on November 4, 1977 under Section 4 of the Act for providing that "land described in the specification below is required for the development and utilisation of land as Industrial areas in Sector Nos. 31,32, 35 and 36 of the Faridabad-Ballabhgarh Controlled Areas by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. " Land measuring 238. 05 acres situated in Village Meola Maharajpur was the subject matter of this notification. This was followed by a Notification dated November 1,1980 under Section 6 by which the Government decided to acquire only 80. 73 acres of land out of the total of 235. 05 acres. Aggrieved by the notifications under Sections 4 and 6, the two petitioners have approached this Court through this writ petition.

(3.) IT has been inter alia averred that they own land measuring 4 kanals 11 marlas out of the land which is sought to be acquired. It has been further averred that construction in the form of quarters and other buildings for running industry had been raised by the petitioners and their father on the aforesaid land in the year 1962. They claimed to be carrying on the business of making wooden packing cases under the name and style of M/s. Woodpack since 1966 on this land. Averring that the successive notifications were issued by the Government with the oblique purpose of pegging down the prices and that land of other industrialists situated on the four sides of the property of the petitioners had been exempted from acquisition, the petitioners challenge the two notifications copies of which have been produced on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3.