JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of notification dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure P-1), and, also seeks the quashing of notification dated 11.7.2005 (Annexure P-2). The said notifications were respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act of 1894').

Brief facts of the case

2. It is averred in the instant petition, that the petitioner's grandfather, who was a displaced person from West Pakistan, had purchased 4 kanals 8 marlas of land bearing khasra No. 51/23/2/1, 24/1 in village Ajrounda, Tehsil and District Faridabad, and, established a factory thereons, under the name of Madhok Timber Industries. The petitioner started construction of the factory building and completed the same in the year 1961. The petitioner was granted certificate for final/PMT registration, on 16.11.1963, and, the said factory was registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit No. 05/12/10515/PMT/SSI. It is further averred, that on 7.6.1962, a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 became issued, however, no further proceedings were undertaken by the Government. Subsequently, the Estate Officer, Faridabad respectively on 27.4.1964 and on 15.5.1964, had issued notices under Sections 3 and 6 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction and Un-regulated) Development Act, 1963 calling upon the petitioner to demolish the factory building on account of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act (supra).

3. It is further averred that on 22.1.1966, the respondents concerned, finalized and published in the Punjab Government Gazette (extra-ordinary), a master plan titled "Development Plan for Faridabad/Ballabgarh Controlled Areas", whereins, sector-wise development of the town of Faridabad was prescribed. The site of the petitioner's factory was also included in Sector-12, which was contemplated to be developed as a commercial sector. The petitioner approached the authorities concerned, for necessary permission to retain his factory at the existing site. However, in the meantime, on 8.9.1966, another notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 became issued for acquiring the land in question for public purpose namely "Planned Development of the area of Sector-12 Faridabad/Ballabgarh Controlled Area". The said notification was followed by a notification dated 6.12.1967 issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The said acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 1465 of 1968, on the ground of discrimination. The said petition became allowed by this Court on 25.3.1969. The said decision was challenged by the State of Haryana by filing LPA No. 250 of 1969, which became dismissed on 22.9.1970. Being aggrieved from the verdict (supra) the State of Haryana preferred an SLP bearing SLP No. (Civil) 2865 of 1971, which was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 24.11.1971.

4. Furthermore, it is averred that even when the SLP (supra) was pending before the Apex Court, another notification under the Act of 1894 became issued on 7.7.1971, which was followed by a notification dated 4.2.1972, issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The petitioner again challenged the said proceedings by filing CWP No. 845 of 1972 along with other writ petitions, before this Court. Vide order dated 8.12.1972, the said writ petitions were allowed, and, the notifications (supra) became quashed by this Court.

5. In addition, it is averred that on 16.10.1980, thus the fourth set of notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. However, subsequently on 7.6.1982, the said notification became withdrawn by the government.

6. On 8.6.1982, another notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued, which became followed by a declaration issued on 20.12.1982 under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The petitioner along with other factory owners challenged the sa