1.. 1- Ml ^ •? cw . * m THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + \N.PAC) 4694/02 DATE OF DECISION: August 25. 2005 # SULEMAN ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W,P,fO 4702/02 # AMIR AHMAD ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC WWC)Nos.4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of2002 page 1of41 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified •ir + W.P.fO 4703/02 # COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD. ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachln Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fO 5428/02 # SUBHASHCHAND ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachln Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.CO 5429/02 # RAGHUBER DAYAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus WP(C)Nos.Am, 470Q-03,542S-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 page2of41 $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms.Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Vernria for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.CCI 5430/02 # ROSHAN LAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W,P,(C> 5516/02 # SMT. SANTOSH DEVI ... Petitioner I Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC WP(C) Nos. 4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 3 of 41 + W.P.fCl 5526/02 # RAMESH CHAND GOEL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr, Sachln Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W-P,(C) 5527/02 # RAM NIWAS AGGARWAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra. Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P„fC> 5529/02 # MOHD. RAMZAN ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate I WPtC)Nos.4694,4702-(B,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 page4of41 y versus $ UNION OF INDIA &ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms.Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sac hi n NawanI for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.PJC} 5530/02 # SULEICH CHAND GOEL ... Petitioner 1 Through Mr. Ravlnder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.p. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. SachIn Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 5532/02 # BA3U KHAN ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF IN DlA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for WP(C) Nos. 4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of 2002 page5 of 41 respondent/LAC + W,P,fC> 5533/02 # NARENDER KUMAR GOEL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W,P.fCI 5534/02 # SMT. PANNO DEVI ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fO 5536/02 # RAJ KUMAR GOEL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharnna, Advocate WP(C) Nos. 4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34.6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page6of 41 versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fCI 5609/02 # MOHD. SADIQ & ORS. ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .......Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P fC) 5684/02 ^ # MALKHAN SINGH ... Petitioner \ Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S..D. Shamna, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA WPCC)Nos. 4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,553S-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of 2002 page7 of 41 -M Mr. Sac hi n Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fO 5685/02 # MUKESHHANS ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNSON OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fO 5686/02 # ARjUN DEV ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents •> Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fO 5687/02 # AIZA2ALAM ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-CB,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of 2002 page 8of 41 .-A Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W,P.CC> 5688/02 # SHANKAR LAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawanl for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fO 5689/02 # RAM DULARI ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent WPCC)Nos. 4694,4702-ai, 5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of 20CQ page9of 41 Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W-P-(C) 5690/02 # SRI KISHAN ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhunn Jhum ^ Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.(0 5691/02 # RAJINDER KUMARJINDAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus f $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fCI 5692/02 WP(C) Nos. 4694,4702-01,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6l(», 6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of 2002 page10of41 # JAIPARKASH AGGARWAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W-P,fC> 5693/02 # KISHAN CHANDER ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate I versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P-fC> 5703/02 # LACHHMANDASS ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA St ORS. Respondents WP(C) Nos. 4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of2002 page 11 of41 Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fO 6109/02 # MAHENDER SINGH ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 6189/02 # BHAGWAN DASS ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 6190/02 WP(C) Nos. 4694.47CQ-03,5428-30,5516.5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 12of 41 # SANTOSHDEVI ... Petitioner ! Througii Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 6232/02 # VINOD KUMAR & ORS. Petitioner ! Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. •......Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 6233/02 # PANNALAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus WP(C)Nos.4694,47a2-C6,542S-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703.6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282.6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 page13ot 41 $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W-P-fO 6234/02 # RAKESH KHATTAR ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.CC) 6282/02 # VINODJINDAL ... Petitioner I Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC WP(C)Nos.4^94,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5535-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 page 14of41. .4 + W,P,(C) 6284/02 # R.P. SHARMA ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin NawanI for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 6400/02 # GAJENDER SINGH ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDlA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fO 6447/02 # A.S. KHAN ... Petitioner I Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus WPCO Nos. 4«H, 4702-(S, 5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 15of 41 $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents ^ Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.(C> 6448/02 # LALIT GUPTA ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin NawanI for counsel for respondent/LAC + W,P,fC) 6449/02 # SHAMIM AHMED SIDDIQUI ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDlA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms.Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin NawanI for counsel for respondent/LAC WPCO Nos. 4m, 4702-ffi, 5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5535, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of2002 pagel6of4I \g % COMM: HON'BLE MR. jUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED 1. Whetherreportersof Soca! papers may be allowedto^ see the judgment? I ^^ R A ' 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ^ T.S. THAKUR, i. Two precise questions fall for consideration in this batch of cases. These are (i) Can a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be issued by the competent authority after an earlier declaration made under the said provision is either found or declared to be legally invalid; and (ii) If a second declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not legally barred, can the period during which a WP(C) Nbs. 4m, 47(E-CS. 5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 17of 41 M competent court has stayed further action or proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary notification be excluded white computing the period referred to in the first proviso to Section 6? 2. The questions arise in the following factual backdrop 3. In terms of a notification dated 30^'' June, 1988, land measuring 72 bighas situate in Khasra No. 1151/3 min (new) [old Khasra No. 1665] of village Mehrauli, New Delhi was notified for acquisition under Section 4 readwith Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act. This was followed by a declaration dated IS^*"July, 1988 issued under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the entire extent of land included in the preliminary notification. Aggrieved by the said notifications, a batch of writ petitions was filed by the owners in this court which were heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 30"" August, 2001. This Court came to the conclusion that notification dated 30*'' June, 1988 to the extent the same denied to the petitioner land WP(C) Nos. 4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 18of 41 M owners an opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act, was illegal. All subsequent proceedings based on the impugned notifications were also quashed with a direction that the petitioners could file their objections to the proposed acquisition within a period of 30 days to be counted from the date the petitioners obtained a certified copy of the judgment. ^ 4. Consequently, the petitioners and other land owners appear to have filed their objections under Section 5- A of the Act before the Collector, who submitted a report to the Government of NCT culminating in the issue of a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act declaring that the entire area of 72 bighas falling in Khasra No. 1151/3 min (new) had to be acquired for the public purpose of providing a public enclosure for use by 'Anjuman Salr-E-GulFaroshan'. The present batch of writ petitions has assailed the validity of the aforementioned declaration primarily on the ground that a second declaration could not be validly issued beyond the period of one year from the date the preliminary WP(C>Nos.4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 page19of41 > notification under Section 4 had been issued. Re ; Question No. 1 5. Section 6 of tiie Land Acquisition Act envisages declaration of intended acquisition of any particular land needed for a public purpose or for a company. It inter alia provides that different declarations nnay be made from time to time in respect of different parts of the land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made under Section 5-A thereof. Proviso one to Section 6(1) introduced by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 24^ September, 1984, however, places limitations on the period within which a declaration under Section 6 may be issued. We shall deal with the said provision while we come to Question No.2. All that need to be mentioned for the present is that neither Section 6 nor any other provision in the Act forbids the issue of a fresh declaration if the one issued eariier is either found or declared by the competent court to be invalid. Cases where WP(C) Nos. 4694,4702-0J, 5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 20of 41 > > Hi a declaration under Section 6 is quashed on the ground that no public purpose exists to justify the proposed acquisition would, however, be a class apart in which event it is obvious that a fresh declaration would be wholly out of place. That is because if the purpose for which the earlier declaration was issued has been held not to constitute a 'public purpose' within the meaning of the Act. a second declaration in satisfaction of the very same purpose would be otiose. 6. The language employed in Section 6 and the scheme of the Act apart, the question has been authoritatively answered by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat & Ann Vs. Musamiaan Imam Haider Bux Razvi & Anr.. AIR 1977 SC 594. The argument advanced before their Lordships in that case was that the cancellation of a declaration under Section 6 amounted to withdrawal from acquisition thereby making a subsequent declaration under the Act legally impermissible. Relying upon its earlier decision in Girdbarila! Amrattal Shodan Vs. State of Guiarat 1966 SC 1408, the Court repelled the contention and held WPCC)Nos. 4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 200Q page 21 of 41 that when a notification under Section 6 of the Act is invalid, the Government may, in its place, issue a fresh notification. Section 48 of the Act did not, declared the court, preclude the Government from issuing such a fresh declaration as cancellation of an earlier notification was only a recognition of the invalidity of that notification and no more. 7. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Bboailal Keshavlal & Ann. AIR 1980 SC 367» in which the Court held that even when a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is found to be invalid, the notification under Section 4 thereof continued to hold the field on whose strength another notification under Section 6 could be validly issued. Reference may also be made to Raahunath & Ors. \/s. State of Maharashtra & Qrs.. AIR 1988 SC 1615 where the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was declared invalid by a Court. The Court held that if the declaration under Section 6 is valid, the notification issued under Section 4 gets exhausted. That principle is, however, inapplicable to a case where a WP(C) No9.4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,61<», 6189^90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 22 of 41 o declaration under Section 6 proves to be invalid, ineffective or infructuous for some reasons. Where a notification is invalid, a fresh notification under Section 6 could be issued regardless of whether the invalidity is on account of a declaration by the court or the Government itself withdraws the same. The following passage is in this regard apposite "Once there is a valid declaration under Section 6, the scope of the notification ^ under Section 4 will get exhausted. This principle however, does not apply to a case where the declaration under Section 6 proves to be invalid, ineffective or infructuous for some reason. Where a notification under Section 6 is invalid, the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue in its place a fresh notification under Section 6. In principle, there is no distinction between a case where a declaration under Section 6 is declared invalid bv the Court and a case In ^ which the Government itself withdraws the declaration under Section 6 when some obvious illegality is pointed out." (Emphasis supplied). 8. In fairness to Mr. Sethi, we must state that he did not seriously dispute the settle^ legal position that a declaration under Section 6 can be followed by another WPCO Nos. 4694,4702-0i, 5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 23 of 41 declaration if the earlier declaration is found to be invalid or is declared to be so by any competent court as is the position in the instant case. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. Re ; Question Mo. 2 ! 9. The fact that a second declaration can be issued is not conclusive of the controversy in the present case. That is because the petitioners argue that any such declaration can be valid only If made within a period of one year from the date the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published. This period had, according to the petitioners, expired in the present case for the preliminary notification was admittedly published on 30^" June, 1988 while the impugned declaration under Section 6 was made on July, 2002, i.e., much beyond the period of one year stipulated in terms of para 2 of the first proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act. Mr. Sethi strenuously argued that the provisions of explanation 1 to Section 6 had no application to cases where a declaration under Section 6 had been found WPCO Nos. 4694,4702-©, 5428-30,5516,5526-27,55'29-30.5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of 2002 page24of 41 to be invalid and, therefore, quashed by a competent court. He submitted that the provisions of the explanation are available only in cases where further action pursuant to the preliminary notification could not be taken on account of a pending writ petition or other proceedings in which the court had restrained any such action or proceeding but not in cases where a declaration had been made within the time stipulated for the same but found to be invalid and quashed. In support of that submission, Mr. Sethi placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao & Ors. \/s. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2002(3) see 533 and the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Oxford English School Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 206. 10. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the extent the same is relevant may, at this stage, be gainfully extracted "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the WP(C) Nos. 4694,4702-CB, 5428-30,5516. 5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5CW,5684-93,5703,6109.6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page 25 of 41 Appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Govemment or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has ^ or have been made (wherever required) under section 5-A, sub-section (2): [Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section(l),- (i)published after the commencement of the land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the commencement