Advocates:
In Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 61 of 2010
For the Petitioner:Mr. Avtaar Singh Rawat, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. K.N. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Adv. General with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel
For the Respondent No. 3: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Bhatia, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 5: Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv with Ms. Puja Banga, Adv.
In Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 64 of 2010
For the Petitioner:Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. K.N. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Adv. General with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel
For the Respondent No. 7: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Bhatia, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 8: Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv with Ms. Puja Banga, Adv.
In Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 69 of 2010
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.K. Sharma, Mr. Ravindra Singh and Mr. D. Mainali, Advocate
For the Respt Nos. 1, 2, 6 & 7 : Mr. K.N. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Adv. General with Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel
For the Respondent No. 3: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Saurabh Bhatia, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 5: Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv with Ms. Puja Banga, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The land in question was acquired for a public purpose under specific legal provisions, with the obligation to continue its use for public good (!) (!) .

2. The land was transferred to a private company (Citurgia) under agreements that stipulated it could only be used for the purpose specified, and such transfer required prior government sanction (!) (!) .

3. The land was valued without including its true worth, as it was acquired for a public purpose and its transfer or sale was not legally permissible without government approval (!) (!) .

4. The scheme for rehabilitation of the sick industrial company (Citurgia) included provisions for sale or development of surplus land, but such actions were only permissible under specific conditions and with proper authority, which were not adhered to (!) (!) .

5. The actions taken by the government and its officers, including granting permissions and changing land use, were found to be contrary to the law, especially since the land was acquired for public use and could not be exploited privately without proper authorization (!) (!) (!) .

6. The scheme and decisions that allowed Citurgia to commercially exploit the land, including the permission granted by the government and the subsequent notifications, were quashed due to their illegality and breach of the original purpose of land acquisition (!) .

7. The court directed the government to approach the appropriate authority (BIFR) to remove the clause permitting commercial exploitation of the land from the revival scheme and to seek its deletion from the sanctioned scheme (!) (!) .

8. The District Magistrate was ordered to take possession of the land and to permit its use only for the purpose for which it was originally acquired, and to act against any breach of covenants (!) (!) .

9. The government was advised to investigate the conduct of its officers involved in these proceedings, as their actions were deemed to lack public confidence (!) .

10. The writ petitions were disposed of with these orders, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal provisions governing land acquisition and use for public purposes (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this document.