Judgment M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 33 petitions* as common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ petition No.3494 of 1990. 2. The challenge in these petitions is to the notification dated 30.1.1989 (Annexure P2), issued under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the Act ). The declaration under Sec.6 of the Act (Annexure P3) acquiring the land was made on 25.1.1990. The public purpose of acquiring the land declared in the aforesaid notifications was for development and utilisation of land for commercial area in Sector 30 of village Silokhera and Sukhrali, District Gurgaon. The averments made in the petitions are that the land belonging to the influential persons had either not been acquired or it had later been released. In para 6 of this petition such like allegations have been made. It has also been averred that huge area has been released from acquisition which would be evident from the perusal of para 8. The writ petitions were admitted on 13.11.1990. The interim directions were issued staying the dispossession and further proceedings against the petitioners. 3. The matter had been contested and respondents have filed their separate replies. 4. Mr. RM Singh and Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners have, at the outset, brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were also the subject matter of challenge in Civil Writ Petition no.3059 of 1990 on similar grounds. The said writ petition was also decided by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.12.2006, and the notification under section 6 of the Act was quashed. In the appeal i. e. LPA No.179 of 2008 filed by the respondent-State, the view taken by the learned Single Judge was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 24.9.2008. The Letters Patent Bench has noticed the subsequent events which had taken place after the filing of the petition, which are to the effect that the land belonging to many builders covered by the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, had been released which include M/s East India Hotels Ltd. , Gurgaon, M/s DLF Universal Limited and s/sh. Gopal Ram @ Gopi, Jai Bhagwan, Ram Singh, Sri Niwas, Kamal Kumar, Shyam lata, Hari Chand and Smt. Nirmal Kanta wife of Sh. Daya Nand. Gopal Ram @ Gopi, Jai Bhagwan, Ram Singh, Sri Niwas, Kamal Kumar, Shyam lata, Hari Chand and Smt. Nirmal Kanta wife of Sh. Daya Nand. Reference has also been made to the instances of releasing acquired land measuring 30 acres vide letter dated 19.9.1995. The Letter Patent Bench has also taken notice of the fact that a collaboration agreement was entered into by various builders with the owners of the land who were later on granted licence by the Town and country Planning Department for establishing and developing the land for various purposes, like Cyber Park Colony, Commercial Colony, Group Housing society etc. On the basis of the aforesaid instances, the Division Bench has concluded that the land had been released in favour of several persons but the same was to be developed privately by the builders and that a class residential construction existed which deserved to be exempted from acquisition. An inference of discrimination was found to be patent in ignoring to consider the case of the petitioners while selectively releasing the land of other similarly situated persons. It is well settled that power of acquisition of land cannot be used for profiteering and in that regard reliance is placed on Bhagat Singh V/s. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534 and BEML Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited V/s. State of karnataka and others, AIR 2004 (SC) 5054. 5. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the bunch of these petitions is squarely covered by the opinion expressed by this court in its judgment dated 24.9.2008 rendered in LPA No.179 of 2008. Accordingly, the notification dated 25.1.1990 issued under Sec.6 of the Act stands quashed with liberty in the same terms as has been granted by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.3059 of 1990. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.