AGGAR UDYOG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bunch of 10 writ petitions. The petitioners impugn the notifications issued by the State Government under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification under Section 4 was issued on April 4, 1998. The second notification was issued on April 6, 1998. The provisions of Section 17 having been invoked, the requirement of compliance, with Section 5-A was dispensed with.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended by Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated as the provisions of Section 4(1) were not complied with. The substance of the notification was not published in the locality. Secondly, it has been submitted that there is an industrial unit running in a part of the land which is being acquired. The petitioners in C.W.P. No. 13578 of 1978 have set up a unit for the manufacture of machine parts. No useful purpose would be served by acquiring the land. It is also maintained that there is a temple on site. Lastly, it has been contended that there was no ground to invoke the urgency provisions contained in Section 17. Reference to the averments in C.W.P. No. 13578 of 1998 has been made in support of the claim made by the petitioners. On these premises, it has been contended that the notification dated April 4, 1998 and April 6, 1998, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.11 and P.13 in C.W.P. No. 13578 of 1998 be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties state that the factual and legal position in the other petitions is identical. Therefore, the pleadings in these petitions need not be specifically noticed.