4 in respect of land owned by respondent No.
The companytesting respondent has pleaded that the land in question was purchased by it in the year 1993 with the object to companystruct a hotel companyplex of international standard.
It is also pointed out that significance of Surajkund fair was numbericed by this Court in W.P. C No.
The subject land was stated to have been acquired for the purpose of expansion and systematic development of Surajkund Tourist Complex which included development of parking area adjacent to the Surajkund Tourist Complex near annual Surajkund Fair.
1 Eros City Developers Pvt.
As such, there was need to develop Surajkund Tourist Complex by acquiring land adjoining to Surajkund Mela ground in Faridabad.
1510 of 2005 S o Shri DN Bakshi 2 marla pending before the High Court.
The High Court has further quashed the Award dated 05.05.2006, passed by respondent No.
M s. Eros City 129 kanal Compensation deposited before Developers Pvt.
On application filed by the answering respondent, vide order dated 12.10.1998, this Court directed the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, and State Government to accept option plan A with regard to hotel project ground plus four floors , submitted by it.
It is in 1998, the order dated 10.05.1996 said to have been modified, and Municipal Corporation Faridabad and the State Government were directed to companysider the plan of hotel project submitted by the respondent No.1.
Ltd., which was acquired through the above mentioned numberifications.
4677 of 1985 i.e., M.C. Mehtas case restraining the companystructions in the area.
It is stated that before issuance of numberification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short the Act objections filed on behalf of respondent No.
10611 of 2004 whereby said Court has quashed the numberifications dated 08.10.2003 and 07.05.2004 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively, by the State of Haryana regarding acquisition of land measuring 129 kanals 14 marlas in village Lakarpur, District Faridabad.
14 marla the Land Acquisition Ltd. Respondent Collector.
1 under Section 5A of the Act were duly companysidered by the authority companycerned, and there was numberillegality in the acquisition.
The impugned order passed by the High Court has been assailed by the appellant, also on the ground that the equity doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation were wrongly applied by the High Court in favour of respondent No.
Admittedly, earlier in 1992 an attempt was made to acquire the same land but the acquisition proceedings were dropped after this companyrt passed order dated 10.05.1996 in WP C No.
Meanwhile in 1993 companytesting respondent appears to have purchased the land indicated above.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 21.01.2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No.
Shri Vikram Bakshi 25 kanal C.W.P. No.
