# CIAj * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Vi.P.(C) A6MJ02 DATE OF DECISION: August 25. 2005 # SULEMAN — Petitioner Through Mr.:RavinderSethi.Sr. Advocatewith 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 # I $, VS. W.P.fO 4702/02 AMIR AHMAD ...Petitioner Through Mr. RavlnderSethi,Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus • • , I. 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 WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-(B,'542g-30,5516,5526-27,5529-^, 5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 page 1of 41 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 W,P,fC) 4703/02 # COMPETENTAUTOMOBILESCO. LTD. ... Petitioner V ^ 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) 5428/02 # SUBHASHCHAND ...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. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachih Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC W.P.fCV 5429/02 # RAGHUBER DAYAL ! Through Mr. S.D. Sharma,,Advocate versus WP(C)Nos.4694.47O2-C0,5428-30,5516,5526-37,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400, (^7-49 of3002 ... Petitioner Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with page 2 of 41 JV. f. f $ UNION OF INDIA &ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachln Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 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. Sachln Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 5516/02 # SMT. SANTOSH DEVI Petitioner ! Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate ( /V '.I) versus $ UNION OF INDIA &ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra. Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachln 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 of2002 page3of41 + W.P.fC) 5526/02 # RAMESH CHAND GOEL I 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 Verniia for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin NawanI for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 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.fO 5529/02 # MOHD. RAMZAN I Through ... Petitioner Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma> 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 lage 4 of 41 versus ^ $ UNION OF^DIA&ORS. ..Respondents Through Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum SafKar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawanifor counsel for respondent^LAC + W.P.fO 5530/07 f SULEKHCj^NDGOEL; ...Petitioner k/'"r.u ^^vinderSethi,Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS. .......Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent I Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani fdr counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 5532/Q7 # BABU KHAN ... Petitioner ' Through Mr. RavinderSethi,Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS. Respondents Through Ms. (5eeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for WPCC)Nos.4694;47(E-QJ,5l<28-30,5516,5526-^,5529-30,^532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of^ page5of41 respondent/LAC + W.P.rC) 5533/07 # NARENDERKUMAR GOEL ... Petitioner ' "nirough Mr. RavinderSettii,Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNIONW INDIA&ORS. .Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr; Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr, Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 553A/02 # SMT. PANNO DEVI ... 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-fCy 5536/02 # RAJ KUMAR GOEL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocatewith Mr. S.D.1Sharma, Advocate WP(C)hios.4694,4702-03.5428-30.5516,5526-27,55^-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703.6lb9,61g9-90,6232-34,62S2,62g4,6400,6447-49of2002 pagft6of41 • - f) versus I ' ' $ UNION OF INDIA &ORS. Respondents ; Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhunv Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respond ent/LAC + W.P.fC) 5609/02 # MOHD. SADIQ &ORS. ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. RavinderSethi,Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.Di Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA &0R1 .......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 Through Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus ... Petitioner Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with UNION OF INDIA & ORS: Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA WPfONos.4694,4702-03,.5428-30,5516,5526-^, 5529-30,5532-34,5536, "5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 page 7 of 41 ( '<> Mr. Sachih Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.(C) 5685/02 # MUKESHHANS: ...Petitioner ' Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocatewith 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 I r + W.P.fC) 5686/02 # ARJUN DEV ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA iS< ORS. .......Respondents Through M$. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/U3iC I • i + W.P.fC) 5687/02 # AlZAZ ALAM ... Petitioner •' Througfi Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with WP(C)Nos.4694,47(E-®,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5519-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6105|,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,,6400i6447-49of20a2 page8ol:41 -% 4^' <'{ Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate I I' versus $ UNldN OF INDIA&ORS; Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin iNawanI for counsel for respohdent/LAC + W.P.fO 5688/Q? .Respondents # I $ # SHANKARLAL ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.p. Sharma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA &ORiS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawahl for counsel for respondent/LAC W P.fO 5689/02 RAM DULARI Petitioner Through; MrJ Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS. Respondents Through Ms.; Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocatesfor respondent WP(C)Noj.4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6i12-34,6282,6284; 6400i6447-49of2002 page 9 of 41 7,-; , •• • ^ Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fCy 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. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.(Cy 5691/02 "i . ' . # RAJINDER KUMARJINDAL ...Petitioner ! Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate '" , i versus $ UNION OF INDIA&ORsi 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) 5692/02 WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-QJ,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536,, -5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284; 64()0.6447-49of2002 pa^c10of4! 7': ' ' • . ' # JAI PARKASH AGGARWAL ... Petitioner ' Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate .4 versus $ UNION OF INDIA 6f 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) 5693/62 # KISHAN CHANDER ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharrna, Advocate •j ^ 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 # LACHHMAN DASS ... Petitioner Through i Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate I versus $ UNION OF INDIA &ORS. Respondents WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, •5609,5684-93,5703,6l09,6i89-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49ot'2002 page 11 of41 \ > -j.- Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. AjayVerma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W,P,(C) 6109/02 # MAHENDERSINGH ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Shafma, 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 Navvani for counsel for respondent/LAC ' • 1 • + W.P.fC) 6189/02 # BHAGWAN DASS ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate I 4 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.4694.4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,623i2-34,6282,:6284,6W,6447-49of2002 , pagel2of41 1^: 'I /s. -u. * I $ # I SANTOSHDEVI ... Petitioner Through Mr. Rayinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhunn Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/lAC W,P,(C) 6232/02 VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORSl Respondents Through Ms^ Geeta Luth/a, 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 # I PANNALAL ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus WP(C) Nos. 4m, 4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 3609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400^ 6447-49 of 2002 page 13of 41 •U '•v 2^ $ 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/LAG + W.P.fC) g234/02 # 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 ' I + W.P.fC) 6282/02 # VINODJINDAL , Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & 0R$. .......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. A702-CB,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 pasel4of41 y.. W.P.fCV 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 Jhurn Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respdndent/DDA Mr. Sachin NawanI for counsel for respondent/ij\C + W P.(t) 6400/02 # GAJENpER 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/I^C + W.P.(C) 6447/02 # I A.S. KHAN ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus a, 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 of2002 page 15of 41 ' • i/. $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS; Respondents , Through Ms. Geeta Luthfa, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 6dA8/Q2 # lALITGUPTA i ... Petitioner 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/LAG + W.P.fC) 6449/02 # SHAMIMAHMED SIDDIQUI ... Petitioner • Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus ; $ UNION OF INDIA&dRS. Respondents i Through Ms. <Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr, Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC WP(C)Nos.46W,470(2-©,5428-30,5516,552&-27;5529-30,5532-34,5536, -5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-9Q,6232-34,6282,(5284,6406i6447-49of2002 pagel6of41 i % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICET.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZAHMED 1. Whetherreportersof local papersmay be allowedto' see the judgment? ^ I 2. To be referredto the Reporteror not? 3. Whetherthe judgmentshould be reported In the Digest? : T,S- THAKUR. I. Two precise questionsfall for considerationin thfs 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>Nos.4694.4702-03,5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,55?^.• -5609,5684^93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49pf2002 pagcl7of41 7- % competent court has stayed further action or proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary i notificationbe excludedwhile computingthe period refenred to in the first proyisp to Section 6? 2. The questions arise in the following factual backdrop 3. In terms of a notificationdated 30^'' June, 1988, land measuring72 bighas situate in Khasra No. 1151/3 min (new) [old Khasra No. 1665] of village Mehrauli, New Delhi was notifiedfor acquisition under Section 4 readwith Section 17(1) and (4) ofthe Land AcquisitionAct. This was followed by a declarationdated 18''^July, 1988 Issued under Section6 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 DivisionBench ofthis 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-(B,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400, ^7-49of2002 page18of41 f \ 7 • V 'n. owners an opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of tiie 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 j ^ 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-Gul Faroshan\ The present batch of writ petitions has assailed the validity of the aforenientioned declaration primarily on the ground that a second declaration could not be valldly issued beyond the period of one year from the date the preliminary i WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of2002 . page19of41 notification under Section 4 had been Issued. Re : Question No, 1 ! 5. Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct envisages declaration of intended acquisition of any particular land needed for a' public purpose or for a company. It Inter alia providesthat differentdeclarationsmay be made from time to time in respectof differentparts of the land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act irrespectiveof whetherpne reportordifferentreportshas or have been made under Sectlpn 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 y 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 earlier is either found or declared by the competent court to be invalid. Cases where :WP(C)NOJ.4«4.4702-aj, 5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, :5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-9p,6232-34,6282,6284,6^00,6447-49of2002 pagc20of41 > # a declarationunderSection6 Is quashedon the groundthat no public purpose exists to justifythe proposed acquisition would, however, be a class apart In which event it Is obvious that a fresh declarationwould be whollyout of place. That Is because if the purposefor vyhlch the earlierdeclarationwas issued has been held not to constitutea 'public purpose' . : i within the meaning of the Act. a second declaration lin satisfactionofthe very same purposewould be otioseo 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 & Arir. Vs. Musamlaan /mam 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 Imperrhlsslble. Relying upon Its earlier decision in Girdharilaf Amratlal Shodan Ks. State of Guiarat 1966 SC 1408, the Court repelled the contention and held WP(C)Nos.4694.4702-05.5428-30,5516,5526-27^ 5529-30,55K-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703.6109,618^90,6232-34,6282,6m 6400.6447-49of3002 page21 of41 ( 33^ that when a notification under Section 6 of the Act is invalic the Governrnent may, in its place, issue a fresh notification. Section 48 of the Act did not, declared the court, preclude the Governrnent from issuing such a fresh declaration as cancellation of an earlier notificationwas 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. Bhoaifal Keshavlai & Ann. AiR 19^0 SC 367, in which the Court held that even when a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is found to be •i • I ' • 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. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Qrs.. AIR 1988 se 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)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 page22of41 X •: • : • declarationunder Section6 provesto be invalid, ineffective reasons. Where a nqtlflcation is invalid,a fresh notification underSection6 could be issued regardless of whether the invalidity is on account of a declarationby the court or the Governmentitselfwithdraws the same. The followingpassageis in this regardapposite '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 nn distinction between a case where a declaration under Section 6 is derlar^H I Invalid by the Court and a case in which the Government itself • withdraws the declaration under Section 6 when some obviousilleaality is^ointed^/': (Emphasissupplied). 8. In fairnessto Mr. Sethi, we must state that he did not seriously dispute the settled legal position that a declaration under Section 6 can be followed by another WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-03,5428;30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,553I2-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6I89i90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49ot'2002 page23of41 If*- ••.V declaration if tlie 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 No, 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 prelimihary notificationunder Section 4(1) of I the Act was published. This period had, according to the petitioners, expired in the priesent case for the preliminary notification was admittedly published on 30^" June, 1988 while the impugned declaration under Section 6 was made on 8**^ July, 2002, i.e., much beyond the period of one year •I . . stipulated in terms of para 2 of the first proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act, Mr. Sethi ^renuously argued that the provisions of explanation 1 to Section 6 had no application to cases where a declaration under Section 6 had been found WP(C)Nos.46?«, 47<J2.a>,5428^30,5526,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5669.5684-93,57p3,6109,6189-?0,6232-34,6282.6284,6400,6447-49ot"2002 page24of41 to be invalid and, therefore,quaslied by a competentcourt. I He submitted that the provisions of the explanation are availableonly in cases:where furtheraction pursuantto the preliminarynotificationcould not be taken on account of la pending writ petitionor otherproceedingsin which the court had restrained any such action or proceeding but not in cases where a declarationhad been made within the time stipulatedfor the Same but found to be invalidand quaslied. In support of that submission, Mr. Sethi placed heavy reliance upon the judgmentof the Supreme Court in Padma SundaraRao &Ors. \/5. StateofTamilNadu &Ors.. 2002(3) see 533 and the decisionof their Lordshipsof the Supreme Court in Oxford English School V/s. Government of Tamil ^ A/adcz&Ors. fi995V5see 7fifi 10. Section 6 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 to the extentthe same is relevantrhay, at this stage, be gainfully extracted "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-(l> Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the WP(C)Nos. 46<M,4702-W,5428-30,5516,5526-27,'5529-J>0,5532-34,55JI6, 5«?9,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 page25 of41 ^ • ' : • M\ 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 Government 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 lan<^ 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 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii)published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification : Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to WP(C)Nos. 4694,4702-QJ, 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 page26of 41 be awarded for such propertyis to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. i Explanation 1, - in computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4, sub section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shali be excluded. Explanation2.- Where the compensation to be awarded for such propertyis to be