Case: Jai Naryana @ Jai Bhagwan &amp; Others Vs. State of Haryana &amp; Others

2. In the instant case, total area is 1407 acres. Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, notification was issued on 2nd June, 2009 for acquiring land admeasuring 1407 acres of land, situated at Villages of Nagli Umarpur, Tigra, Ulahwas, Kadarpur, Maidawas, Badshahpur, Bahrampur and Ghata, District Gurgaon, for the purpose of development and utilization of land for residential sectors 58 to 63 and residential commercial sectors 65 to 67 at Gurgaon. Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was issued on 31st May, 2010 with respect to 850 acres of land; rest of the land was left out from acquisition. On 29th July, 2011 a High Powered Committee was constituted to consider the release.3. The case of the appellant was not referred to the High Powered Committee. The appellant preferred a writ petition with respect to 9 kanals, 3 marlas of land, situated at Village Madiawas, Gurgaon. It is the case of the appellant, that his land, measuring 9 kanals and 3 marlas, was left from being referred to the High Powered Committee as otherwise not required after declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. The Land Acquisition Collector passed award only in respect of 87 acres of land on 22nd December, 2011. There was release of approximately 95% of the notified land for acquisition. The award was passed and it was submitted that electric substation had not come up in the area particularly belonging to the

Reasoning:
The land in area 750 acres had been excluded before the declaration under Section 6 and 750 acres was released in favour of private builders after award was passed. It was wholly malafide exercise and bonafide of action of the High Powered Committee has also been questioned directing release of so much land. It was submitted that the whole exercise has made the acquisition a statutorily mockery and it was colourable exercise of power, only to benefit the private builders and could not be said to be sustainable.In the circumstances, without making any further comments, as they may prejudice the investigation itself to be made by CBI regarding action of release of land in the instant case. Considering the serious allegations, let there be investigation made by the CBI in the instant case and it may submit report to this Court within a period of six months from today.7. In the facts and circumstances of the case it was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that as his land is not required, he may file a representation to the respondent for releasing of land. It is assured by counsel for the State that in case representation is filed, it would be considered and decided objectively.In our opinion the said observations prima facie deserves to be expunged; they shall not be treated as adjudication part of the order.As ultimately the acquisition of land has not been made, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appeal has been rendered infructuous.