Act was issued proposing to acquire land situated at various villages namely village Kapriwas, Malpura and Ghatal Mahniawas, Tehsil Dharuhera, District Rewari for the public purpose namely development of industrial sectors 15, 16 and 17 Dharuhera to be planned as an integrated complex for industrial and other public utilities. The alleged object of acquisition was likely to be carried out by Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (for short 'the HSIDC') since the industrial sectors are developed by the State Corporation. The land of the petitioners also fell in the said notification and, therefore, objections were filed under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) for release of land/exemption on the ground that the land was to be used for setting up of industrial center to fulfill the requirement of the trained skilled manpower of the company IACM. The second declaration dated 12.05.2011 under Section 6 of the Act was issued wherein, the land being acquired was reduced to 435 acres from 494 acres but the land of the petitioners remained included. The State had issued policies and guidelines for exemption/release of the land and reliance was placed upon the policy dated 24.01.2011. Reliance was also placed on order dated 22.07.2011 whereby instructions had been issued that the Government of India was likely to introduce a bill proposing certain amendments in the Act and, therefore, it would be desirable to wait for a new Legislation before proceeding further in cases of land acquisition. The petitioners had filed a representation before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary to Government for release of the land, which was pending consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed alleging that the Government had released 60 acres of land from acquisition and no proper survey had been conducted and opportunity of hearing was not given and the Government had issued orders to keep the acquisition proceedings pending till the amendment of the Act was finalized. The petitioners were to use the land for the same purpose for which it was being acquired and, therefore, the acquisition was liable to be quashed.
