JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On November 17, 1982 the State Government issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By this the Government indicated its intention to acquire the land for the purpose of developing Sector 15 in Gurgaon. On December 10, 1984 a Notification under Section 6 was issued. The petitioner alleges that it has a running industrial unit in a plot measuring 515 sq. yds. It made a prayer for the grant of exemption from acquisition. Vide letter dated May 18, 1998, the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, asked for a clear report regarding the position of the land in the lay out plan so as to determine the issue of the release of the petitioners plot. The reply was sent by memorandum dated July 16, 1998. The copy is on record an Annexure P-8. The Administrator informed the Director, Urban Estates, that the case had already been recommended by his predecessor and that he too did not "have an objection if 515 sq. yds. land of the applicant is released from acquisition." Despite this clear recommendation, no decision was taken. The petitioner felt threatened that it was going to be dispossessed. Thus, it has approached this Court through this petition. 2. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Maharaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a small industrial unit at the site. Tooth picks are being manufactured. However, if this plot is exempted from acquisition, the petitioner shall use it only for residence and that no industrial work shall be carried out. The respondents, however, contest the prayer for exemption. 4. Admittedly, the notification for acquisition of land was issued in December 1984. According to the averments in the written statement the award was announced on September 21, 1986. Almost 14 years have elapsed since then. The petitioner is admittedly in possession of the land. It is also not disputed that a compensation of Rs. 48,000/- had been assessed. However, learned counsel for the respondents concede that it was not paid to the petitioner. Resultantly, it appears that the respondents did not really need the petitioners land. Otherwise, it is unthinkable that no body shall take possession (despite announcing the award) for a period of almost 14 years. 5. 48,000/- had been assessed. However, learned counsel for the respondents concede that it was not paid to the petitioner. Resultantly, it appears that the respondents did not really need the petitioners land. Otherwise, it is unthinkable that no body shall take possession (despite announcing the award) for a period of almost 14 years. 5. Still further it is clearly established on the record that the Administrator of the Authority at Gurgaon has no objection if the plot is exempted from acquisition. This recommendation has admittedly not been rejected till now. In fact it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that compensation is respect of even a part of the other land, which is besides the plot of 515 sq. yds, has not yet been paid to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the acquired land in the Sector has been used for residential purposes. The petitioner has undertaken to utilise the plot of 515 sq. yds only for residence. Thus, there would no change from the permitted user of the land. 6. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, we find no ground to reject the petitioners request for exemption from acquisition. Nor do we find any justification for the prolonged inaction of the authority for such a long time. 7. The case raises certain issues. Why was the possession of the land not taken despite announcement of the award in the year 1986 ? Why was the money not offered to the petitioner at that time ? Why was the money not deposited in the Court as required under Section 31 of the Act ? We find no answer to these queries on the record. We cannot compliment the respondents for their continued inaction on the petitioners request and the recommendation of the Administrator for exemption. Delay only encourages mal-practices. The statutory authorities are expected to function efficiently. In the present case, we find there has been a continuing inaction. Why ? There is no explanation. 8. Irrespective of the above, we find it reasonable to infer that the authority did not really need the petitioners plot. Thus, it shall be excluded from acquisition. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.