JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company challenges the validity of the notifications dated January 30, 1989 and January 25, 1990, issued by the State of Haryana under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, i894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)- Copies of these notifications have been produced as Annexures P-l and P-2. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The petitioner owns 14 kanals 12 marlas of land in village Salokhra, Tehsil & District, Gurgaon. On January 30,1989, the Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act expressing its intention to acquire land measuring 210.28 acres in village Salokhra for the public purpose of developing Sector 30 at Gurgaon. On January 25, 1990, the notification under Section 6 for the acquisition of land measuring 169.00 acres was issued. Even though 41. 28 acres of land was excluded from acquisition no relief was granted to the petitioner-It is averred that the petitioner’s land is bounded with pucca wall of eight feet height and that houses had been constructed thereon before the end of November 1988. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, in not exempting its land from acquisition, the petitioner had filed this writ petition. The action of the respondents has been challenged interalia on the grounds that it is violative of the policy framed by the State Government where-under lands on which construction had been made prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4, are not to be acquired. The action has also been challenged on the ground that no survey of the area as required under Section 8 of the Act was conducted and that the action is discriminatory in as much as the land purchased by M/s Umtech Industries Limited has been exempted from acquisition.
3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been averred by way of preliminary objection that the land in dispute was fully vacant at the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The allegation of the petitioner that the land in dispute was having pucca wall and houses, is totally wrong. The survey was conducted in accordance with law and that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents. On merits, it has been inter alia averred that “there is no general policy not to acquire land having construction over the same.” Further, it has been stated that the land “owned by M/s Unitech Company Limited for which it had got licence to develop the residential colony…..was left out of the acquisition.” Rest of the averments made in the petition have also been controverted.
4. The petitioner has filed a detailed replication. It has been averred that the petitioner-company had raised construction in an area measuring 1200 square feet approximately much before the issuance of the notification under Section 4. It has been further stated that no survey had been conducted. Details regarding the construction in different Khasra Numbers have also been given. Reference has also been made to the Khasra Girdawri in support of the submission. It has also been averred that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner on May 17, 1988 and construction was started thereon immediately thereafter.- The construction work was completed in the month of November 1988. It has also been averred that the action of the respondents in granting exemption to M/s Unitech Industries Limited while a similar relief has been denied to the petitioner, is discriminatory and cannot be sustained. The respondents have filed a rejoinder to the replication controverting the averments made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. I have heard Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Sibal for the respondents.
6. Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made three submissions. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has raised construction over the land in dispute. A copy of the lay-out plan of the entire area included in Section 30, has been produced as Annexure P-7 with the replication. The construction raised by the petitioner on this land has been indicated therein. On this basis, it is contended that the respondents were bound to release the land from acquisition. Learned counsel has also contended that the survey as required under Section 8 was not conducted and that the action suffers from the vice of discrimination. Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the claim made on behalf of the petitioner.
7. The first question that arises for consideration is when was the construction raised by the petitioner ?
8. It is the admitted position that the petitioner had purchased the land on May 17, 1988. It is claimed that the entire construction had been completed in the month of November 1988 and that the officials of the Company occupied the residential premises. In support of this claim, the petitioner has filed a copy of the Khasra Girdawri for the period from February 15, 1988 to August 18,1991. A perusal of this Khasra Girdawri shows that the land in question is comprised in four different Khasra Numbers. In the entry made on February 15,1988, the entire land is described as ‘khali’. In the entry made on March 11,1989, the boundary wall appears to have bear made in respect of the entire area. However, in respect of Khasra No. 4/1/1 measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas, it is also indicated that some residential accommodation exists. It is, thus, apparent that even by March 1989, the entire construction as claimed by the petitioner had not been raised. The claim of the petitioner that the entire construction had been completed by November 1988, is, thus, falsified by this document. In this situation, the plea of the petitioner is prima facie untenable. In any event, there is a serious dispute on facts which cannot be decided in these proceedings.
9. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the construction existed, there is no law which may debar the Government from acquiring such a land. The claim in the petition that there is a policy framed by the State Government in this behalf, has been denied by the respondents. No copy of any policy decision has been produced. In such a situation, the claim of the petitioner that the land ought to have been excluded, from acquisition on the ground that construction existed thereon, cannot be sustained.
10. It was then contended that measurement and demarcation etc. as contemplated under Section 8 was not carried out. This averment has also been specifically denied. Still further, the fact that more than 41 acres of land has been excluded from acquisition shows that the factual position as existing on the spot had been checked up by the State Government before issuing the notification under Section 6. Accordingly, even this plea cannot be accepted.
11. Lastly, it was contended that the action suffers from the vice of discrimination. It was contended that exemption having been granted to M/s Unitech Industries Limited, even the petitioner-Company should have been granted exemption. Learned counsel could not show that the two were similarly situated.
12. It is the admitted position that M/S Unitech Industries Limited have been given a licence for development of a colony on their land in this village. Even the Government has acquired land for the same purpose. If the competent authority has considered it appropriate to allow a licenced coloniser to develop a part of the area and exempted its land from acquisition, the petitioner who does not have a licence cannot complain of discrimination. It is not the petitioner’s case that it has a licence for the development of a colony. Consequently, the two are not similarly placed. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been discriminated against.
13. This writ petition was listed for hearing along with Civil Writ Petition No. 2635 of 1990. At the hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the factual position in the two cases was different. The cases were heard separately and have been disposed of by separate orders.
14. No other point was urged.
15. There is, thus, no merit in this petition. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.