JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The petitioners in both petitions seek quashing of the same notifications, on the same grounds, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together for disposal. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken up from CWP No. 13314 of 2004.

2. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (in short, the Act of 1894) dated 17.4.2002, whereby the land acquisition authority sought to acquire 1326.04 acres of land, for the purpose of residential, commercial and institutional for Sector 1(Part) 10- 11(Part), 12 and 13 Bahadurgarh, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority, further declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 10.4.2003 for acquiring about 1239.05 acres of land and notice was issued under Section 9 of the Act of 1894, on the ground of discrimination and notifications (supra) are not in consonance with the provisions of National Capital Region Planning Board Act No. 2 of 1985 (in short, the Act of 1985) and was in contravention of National Capital Regional Plan of 2001.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have raised "A" class construction prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. Some instances were highlighted by the counsel, whereby, similarly situated land has been released by the acquiring authority. However, he asserts that the claim of the petitioners was not taken into account by the competent authority concerned, therefore, they are being subjected to discrimination.

4. Before we delve deeper into the legality of notification(s) (supra), it is imperative to note that the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned on 25.6.2004 and in pursuance of pronouncement of the award, the possession was taken vide Rapat No. 484 dated 25.6.2006 and the total amount of compensation amounting to Rs 72,57,04,098/- was tendered and out of that amount, a sum of Rs 53,59,11,899/- had been disbursed to the landowners concerned.

5. As a matter of fact, the instant writ petition(s) were earlier dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2010, on the ground that the writ petitions were filed after pronouncement of the award and the possession has already been assumed by recording Rapat in the revenue record.

6. The petitioners again knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing review application No. 169 of 2010 in CWP No. 13314 of 2004, for review of the above said order. However, the same was also dismissed by this Court. The relevant extract of the order is read as under:-

xxx xxxx xx

2. By way of these review applications an effort is made to re-argue the case by putting forward the plea that there is hostile discrimination against the applicant-petitioner(s), inasmuch as, their land has been acquired whereas land belonging to other similarly situated persons have been left out of the acquisition. It has also been submitted that the question of delay would not come because the information concerning exclusion of land from acquisition became public only on the announcement of award. The writ petitions having been filed within a week or ten days of the announcement of award would not suffer the accusation of delay.

3. Having heard learned counsel at a considerable length we are of the view that the applicant-petitioners) did not raise any such objection when the writ petitions were heard and eventually dismissed on 7.5.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner(s) is not in a position to controvert an