JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J.: - The challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to the notification dated 23.12.2005 (P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and the subsequent declaration by notification under Section 6 issued on 29.12.2006 (P-9). The award was announced on 15.11.2008 with respect to the land/plot of the petitioner amongst other land under acquisition. The petitioner has also challenged the notice for removal of illegal construction raised by the petitioner in Khasra No.105//24/2/2 dated 09.09.2011 failing which the same shall be removed at the risk and cost of the petitioner. This notice has been issued by the respondent-HSIIDC Ltd., the authority for whom the land has been acquired at public expense for the public purpose of setting up Growth Centre at Saha, Tehsil & District, Ambala, Haryana. 2. The petitioner pleads that he had no notice of the acquisition till he received the notice of demolition dated 09.09.2011 (P-4). It has been stated that similarly situated land/plots of other persons have been released from the acquisition. The principal attack to the acquisition is founded on the plea that the land in question is sandwiched between land already left out from the acquisition. The small plot belonging to the petitioner cannot be used for any purpose to subserve the object of the acquisition and is practically of no use to the respondents for carrying out the public purpose of the acquisition. 3. Learned counsel has explained the position to us with the help of the revised layout plan of Phase I & II, Growth Centre, Saha. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 – HSIIDC has very fairly conceded before us that the present status of the land is such that it cannot be put to use as of now. The land in question falling in Khasra No.24/2 is locked between land of one Ms. Sonia and land of some other land owners whose land was ordered to be released by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2010 inter alia in CWP No.108 of 2009. The land of Ms. The land in question falling in Khasra No.24/2 is locked between land of one Ms. Sonia and land of some other land owners whose land was ordered to be released by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2010 inter alia in CWP No.108 of 2009. The land of Ms. Sonia falls towards the East of the land of the petitioner which is contiguous to land on its North and West which have been released either under Section 48 of the Act or for land owners who have filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and have not received payment of compensation. Ten writ petitions fall in this category including CWP No.1048 of 2008 (Deepak Aggarwal and others), CWP No.19199 of 2008 (Aditya Kumar), CWP No.19428 of 2008 (Ramesh Chand and others), CWP No.13232 of 2007 (Kuldip Singh), CWP No.10754 of 2008 (Puran Singh), CWP No.13019 of 2007 (Puran Singh and others), CWP No.19253 of 2008 (Mohan Singh), CWP No.6029 of 2008 (Dr. Madan Mohan Dutta), CWP No.108 of 2009 (Sonia) and CWP No.13 of 2008 (Sudesh and others). 4. Mr. Sehgal has brought to our notice the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Supreme Court in the case Sonia & another vs. State of Haryana & others which SLP stands dismissed. Sonia was a purchaser of land after notification under Section 4 of the Act and was therefore held not to posses locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. This would, however, would not materially effect the present case since the land of the petitioner was purchased prior to notification under Section 4 and admittedly cannot be put to use for the public purpose notified being sandwiched between land already released. 5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition succeeds and the impugned notifications dated 23.12.2005 (P-3) and 29.12.2006 (P-9) and the award dated 15.11.2008 (P-10) are quashed qua the petitioner’s plot purchased under sale deed dated 14.06.2005 (P-1).