JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- This order will dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 3589 of 2011 and 3601 of 2011, as a common question of law and fact is involved in these cases. For dictating the judgment, facts are being taken from CWP No. 3589 of 2011. 2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) issued on June 2, 2009 (P-2) proposing to acquire 1417.074 Acres of land, situated in the eight villages of District Gurgaon, for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land for the residential Sectors 58 to 63 and residential commercial sectors 65 to 67 at Gurgaon. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, finally proposing to acquire 850.10 Acres of land. Petitioners are the owners of about 13 Kanals 6 Marlas of land, out of the total land measuring 17 Kanals 12 Marlas, detail of which is given in paragraph No. 2 of the writ petition. 3. Admittedly, the land owned by the petitioners is lying vacant. By making reference to the site plan (P-1), it is stated that area shown in green colour is in the ownership of the petitioners and their co-sharers. Area shown in light yellow colour is the area, for which grant of licence, to develop a regulated colony, under the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, is in progress. For the area shown in dark yellow colour, licence has already been granted. So far as the area shown in pink dot line, as per information supplied, it was not the subject matter of acquisition. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that possibly in view of the situation of the land owned by the petitioners, it cannot be used for the purpose for which it has been acquired. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners refused to sell this land to the Developers and on account of which, it has been ordered to be acquired. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, it is not possible to accept contentions of counsel for the petitioners. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners refused to sell this land to the Developers and on account of which, it has been ordered to be acquired. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, it is not possible to accept contentions of counsel for the petitioners. It is apparent from the records that already 850.10 Acres of land has been notified under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition. May be licences were granted to the developers for a small portion of area falling under acquisition. The same has been done in terms of the policy of the State Government dated October 26, 2007. There is no challenge to the provisions of that policy. If that is so, the petitioners cannot claim discrimination. Furthermore, it is apparent from the record that as per the norms fixed under the Act of 1975, it will not be possible for the petitioners to develop a plotted colony . Furthermore, as per master plan, the petitioners cannot develop this land as residential/ commercial area in view of smallness of their area. It is not case of the petitioners that they had already moved an application, as per provision of the policy of the State Government, to develop the area in question or for release of land or for ‘change of land use’ certificate. Taking note of the situation of the land, we can safely say that the State will develop it for the purpose for which it was acquired and then amalgamate it with the area to be developed by the Promoters. It is for the State authorities to see as to for which use this land can be put to. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ------------