JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, President - Vide this order to Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2228 of 1988 and 9406 of 1987 are being disposed of as the facts are similar. 2. Detailed facts are not required to be noticed as the present cases are fully covered under orders of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1983 (Sita Wanti v. State of Haryana and another) decided on August 23, 1996. In that case also challenge was to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the same notifications which are impugned in these writ petitions. The Supreme Court after holding that on the date of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) there existed a running factory allowed the writ petition, quashing the acquisition of land of the factory. 3. In CWP No. 2228 of 1988 the petitioners are Spick India Private Limited through Satish Sareen, Managing Director, and Mrs. Seema Sareen, wife of Mr. Satish Sareen. In para 2 of the writ petition, it was stated that earlier factory on the disputed land was being run in the name and style of Messrs India Rubber and Chemical Company, which was started by Kamta Parshad Jain, over land measuring 13-1/3 biswas equivalent to about 2016 square yards comprising Khasra No. 107 situated within the revenue estate of Faridabad. They had purchased the land from Puran Lal vide sale deed dated August 13, 1962. The aforesaid company i.e. Messrs India Rubber and Chemical Company was registered as small scale unit vide certificate dated April 2, 1964. 4. In the written statement filed, it was not disputed that the disputed land was comprising Khasra No. 107, referred to above and remaining assertions were not specifically denied but simply denied for want of knowledge. 5. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on October 1, 1973, followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on January 7, 1974. These notifications were challenged by the writ petitioners in CWP No. 694 of 1974. This writ petition was allowed on February 22, 1974, with the direction to the respondents to consider the objection to be filed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections inter alia asserting existence of the running factory prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. This writ petition was allowed on February 22, 1974, with the direction to the respondents to consider the objection to be filed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections inter alia asserting existence of the running factory prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. On this the Collector made the report, which is reproduced in para 8 of the affidavit of Satish Sareen dated January 25, 2001. An extract from the report dated April 7, 1975, is reproduced hereunder :- "The objectors in their objections have submitted that a factory is in existence on the land in dispute since the year 1962. They had started this factory in the year 1970 and earlier before them a factory had been in existence and was running under some other name. Now, the factory is running in the name of M/s. Spick (India) and M/s Vickers (India). They had been got registered in the year 1971-72. A certificate to this effect from Senior District Industries Officer was produced and registration certificate of Spick (India) issued in the year 1971 and was also produced. It was submitted that adjoining houses and factories have been released from acquisition and, therefore, their land may not be acquired. I inspected the spot on 3.2.75. Sheds are in existence. From the construction it is clear that this factory is running and is in existence since long, except for one shed which appears to be new construction. The entire construction is of A class and there is nothing in this factory which may be injurious to health. Therefore, it is my considered opinion that this land may not be acquired." 6. No reply to this assertion was filed on behalf of the respondents. 7. Thus, the position boils down to that at the time of issuance of the notification there existed a factory which was running, which fact is supported by the report of the Collector as reproduced above, which report was not accepted and fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act dated October 1, 1976, was issued. 8. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, this writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioners where existed factory. 9. 8. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, this writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioners where existed factory. 9. If the respondents object to the proposed order as above, they may move the High Court with the objection petition within two months for disposal of the writ petition on merits according to law. Copies of the order be supplied to the counsel for the parties. Order accordingly.