Successive notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued for the purpose of pegging down prices, do not vitiate the acquisition proceedings, especially when the Apex Court has disapproved the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of Haryana, (1982) 84 P.L.R. 743 (F.B.).

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 2310 of 1986, 2335 of 1986, 7272 of 1984, 2273 of 1984, 5185 of 1983 and 3678 of 1986, as common questions are involved therein. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2310 of 1986.

2. According to the petitioners, the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 18.9.1973, expressing its intention to acquire 238.05 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Meola Maharajpur for the purpose of development and utilisation as industrial area in Sectors 31, 32,35 and 36, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. This notification was allowed to lapse. A fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 4.11.1977, whereby almost the same land situated in the revenue estates of Meola Maharajpur and Sarai Khwajha was sought to be acquired for the same very purpose. This was followed by a notification dated 1.11.1980 under Section 6 of the Act. According to the petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions No. 2310 of 1986 and 2335 of 1986 and 2273 of 1984, they purchased land measuring 4 kanals 19 marlas equivalent to about 3000 sq. yards vide sale-deed dated 30.1.1992 which was registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi, on 1.2.1982. The challenge to the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the writ petitions is:-

(i) that the State cannot be allowed to freeze the price of the land in the locality by keeping the land in question under constant acquisition by issuing notifications and then allowing them to lapse without any justification, (ii) that the State cannot issue notification under Section 4 of the Act for a much larger area than it is actually needed, with a view to freeze the value of the land by keeping the notification under Section 4 of the Act alive by issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act just a few days before the expiry of period of 3 years prescribed for the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, and; (iii) that the land belonging to the petitioners is surrounded by various industries and land of those industries has been excluded from acquisition. The precise challenge is that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquisition of land measuring 238.50 acres of village Meola Maharajpur, but in notification under Section 6 of the Act, land acquired is only to the extent of 80.73 acres, meaning thereby that land measuring 157.32 acres was excluded from acquisition. Similarly, land measuring 10.28 acres and 88.90 acres in the revenue estates of Aurangapur and Sarai Khwawja respectively, was excluded from acquisition. Thus, according to the petitioners, land was not required by the State for use of industrial development.

3. The State in its written statement has averred by way of preliminary objection that the petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction after the expiry of period of more than six years, and that the writ petitions suffer from delay and laches. The locus-standi of the petitioners is also challenged on the ground that awards of the land in dispute were announced and possession taken on 2.5.1984. On merits, the State has admitted that initially, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1973, but notification under Section 6 of the Act could not be issued due to heavy rush of work with the Land Acquisition Collector and, thus, notification under Section 4 of the Act lapsed after the expiry of period of three years. With regard to the notification now challenged, the State has averred that notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.11.1980, within stipulated period of three years, and that the allegation of the petitioners that the State took no action for taking up further proceedings for acquisition of land was wrong and hence, denied. On merits, the other allegations made in the petitions have also been denied.

4. Mr. M.S. Jain, Sr. Advocate, counsel for