$ 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,fC> 4702/02 # AMIR AHMAD ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. RavinderSethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharrrja, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra. Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sac hin Nawanl for counsel for respondent/LAC j' 5^1^ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4694/02 DATE OF DECISION: August 25. 2005 # SULEMAN ... Petitioner ! Through Mr„ Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus WP(C)No9.4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, -5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of2002 . paselot41 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 ..^v I • • + W.P.fO 4703/Q? # COMPETENTAUTOMOBILElSCO., LTD. ... Petitioner Through Mr, RavinderSethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA&OR^. ; .Respondents iThrough Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachln Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P,(C> 5A2S/Q2 # I SUBHASH CHAND ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharrna, Advocate 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 i + W.P.fC) 5429/02 # I 'IS" RAGHUBER DAYAL versus ... Petitioner Through Mr, Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate WPCC)Nos.46M,4702-(B,5428-30,5516,5526-77,5529-30,^532-34.5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of2002 pa^2of41 . A ;! : 1 • $ UNION OF INDIA&0R§. ; Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma-for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/IJVd + W.P.fC) 5A30/Q7 # ROSHANL^ ...Petitioner Through Mr. RayinderSethi,Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus ' ' i '• ^ UNION OF INDIA&ORSi I ' ., Respondents Through Ms.; Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum; Sarkar,'Advoratesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma fbr respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W, P.fC) 5516/02 # SMT. SANTOSH DEVI ... Petitioner ; ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate # . versus ; , $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS.: Respondents -f" Through Ms.„Ge^taLuthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocatedfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC I , ; WP(C)Noj.4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,552&-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536 ; i5609,5684^93,5703,6l09,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400;6447:49of2002 pagc3of41 I hi \ -j' + W.P.fCV 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 Sarkan Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawanl for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 5527/02 i' • I # RAM NIWAS AGGARWAL ... 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 Vernha fpr resppndent/DDA i Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC ; I, ' , • W,P,(C) 5529/02 MOHD. RAMZAN ... Petitioner Through Mr. Rayinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate , i ,WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-00,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,55-16, ' i 5W»,568+-93,5763,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6W,6447-49pf2002 t)age 4 of 41 'i ^ ![ i'l i . J- /s t versus $ UNION OF tolA&ORS.! Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum ^3tKar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawanifor counsel for respondent/UC + W,P,fC> 553n/n!> I # SULEKH CHAND GOEL ...Petitioner Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma; Advocate versus $ UNION OF_^DIA&ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent i Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawanifor counsel for ; ; respondent/UC j V I. . , 1 + W.P.fC) 553?/n7 •; # BABUKHAN ... petitioner ' Through Mr, RayinderSethi.Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate - versus $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS^ , Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr; Sachin Nawani for counsel for , WP{C)No9.4694,4702-®,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529r30,5532-34,5536. , . 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6147-49 of2002 page5of41 A: respondent/LAC + W,P,fC> 5533/02 # NARENDERKUMAR GOEL 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,Advocatesfor respondent ^ , Mr; Ajay Verma forrespondent/DDA A Mr. Sachin Naw^rii for counsel for ^ respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 5534/02 # SMT. PANNO DEVI ^ ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharrna, Advocate I ' ' . versus ! $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra. Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA i Mr. Sachin Nawanifor counselfor respondent/LAC + W,P,fC> 5536/02 # RAJ KUMAR GOEL ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate ,! . • i ^ ' '/v I; , I . il '•! 'i I I WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-CB,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-it, 5536, • : 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400.6M7-49 of2002 page6of41 a::. versus $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS.| Respondents through Ms. jceeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin NawanI for counsel for respondent/L^C + W.P.fC) 5609/02 # MOHD. SADIQ &ORS. ... Petitioner ' Through Mr. HavinderSethi, Sr^ Advocatewith A : Mr. S.D. Sharmi Advocate : I versus $ UNION OF INDIA &ORS. i 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. 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 i , ' WP(C)Nos. 4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, •5609,56g4-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34.6282,6284,'6400,^7-49of:^ page7of41 A' Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 5685/02 # MUKESH HANS ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIAN 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.(C) 5686/02 # ARJUNDEV ... 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/U3iC + W.P.fC) 5687/02 # AlZAZ ALAM ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with WP(C) No3.4694,47(E-a3,5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6]09,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of2002 pagegof41 I • I I JL ^ • "0 Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate 1 . ' ' ' ' ' versus i . ' , ' UNION OF 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.fo 56aa/n7 :# SHANKARUL ... petitioner •' Through Mr. RaylnderSethi,Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS. ' .......Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. JhumJhum Sarkar,Advocatesiforrespondent Mr. Ajay Verma for resporident/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC I • . W.P.fCl 56B9/Q7 # RAM DULARI Petitioner Through Mr. Ravirider Sethi, Sr. Advocate with . Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate I versus , $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS. Respondents i " Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocatesfor respondent i . , , : • I WP(C)Noi4694,4702-03,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, i 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6Z^2-34,6282,6284,640016447-49 of2002; ,page9ot'41 :i /Ca: Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani ifdr counsel for respondent/LAG + W.P.fC) 5b90/02 I I • # SRI KISHAN ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate i ' • ^ I . • ' , versus I$ 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> 5691/02 # RAJINDER KUMARJINDAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. flavinder 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) 5692/02 WP(C) Nos. 4694.4702-QJ, 5428-30,5516,5536-27,553-30,5532-34,5536, , '5609,5684-93,'5703,6l09,61g9-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of2002 page10of41 A W. Ml •C .*> # JAI PARKASHAGGARWAL ... Peffcioner 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) 5693/02 # KISHAN CHANDER ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharnna, 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.(C) 5703/Q2 # LACHHMANDASS ... Petitioner I Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents WP(C)No5.4694.4702-03,5428-30,5516,55^27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, "5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of,2002 page 11 of41 : A . I? ' # 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 W,P,fC) 6109/02 MAHENDERSINGH ... 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, Advocate? for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W,P,IC) 6189/02 BHAGWAN DASS ... Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.p. Sharma, Advocate versus ; $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Lgthra, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W,P (C) 6190/02 # i 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 page 12of 41 > xs. iJ.. (iPr # SANTOSH DEVI ... Petitioner Through Mr. Rayinder 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 resppndent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 6232/02 # VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharnna, Advocate versus $ UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through Ms, Geeta Luth/a, Ms.Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Advocates for respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. SachIn Nawani for counsel for ^ respondent/LAC + W P.fC) (^233/02 # PANNA LAL ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus 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 page 13ot'41 A -U. •vN! $ 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) 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.(C) 6282/02 # VINODJINDAL ... 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 WP(C)Nos.469+,4702-Ce,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 pagel4of41 + W.P.(C1 6284/02 # R.P. SHARMA 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. Sac hin Nawani for counsel for respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) 6400/02 # GAJENDERSINGH Petitioner ,• '• Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharnria, 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) 6447/02 # A.S. KHAN ... Petitioner ! Through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus WP(C)No3. 4694,4702-00,5428-30,5516,5536-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, -5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of 2002 pagel5of41 V •A h $ UNIOWOF INDIA&ORS. Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthfa, Ms. Jhum Jhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for resppndent/U^C + W P,fC) GAdRlQ'> f LALITGUPTA ... Petitioner Through Mr. RavinderSethi,Sr. Advocatewith Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate versus ' li • ' • . - , • , $ UNION OF INDIA&ORS. .......Respondents Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms.Jhum Jhum Sarkar,Advocatesfor respondent Mr. Ajay Verma for respondent/DDA Mr. Sachin Nawani for counsel for ! respondent/LAC + W.P.fC) eAMJQ2 # SHAMIMAHMED SIDDIQUI ... Petitioner I i ' 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 Nawanl for counsel for respondent/LAC WP(C)Nos.4694,4702-ffi,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536, , . -5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400t6447-49of2002 pagcl6of41 !: I % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICET.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZAHMED 1. Whetherreportersof local papersmay be allowedto see the judgment? 2. To be referredto the Reporteror hot? 3. Whetherthe judgmentshould be reported in the ! Digest? ' T.S, THAKUR. 1. •• / Two precise questionsfall for considerationin this batch of cases. These are (i) (ii) 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 Ifa second declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not legally barred, can the period during which a V/P(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 page 17of 41 A- • • competent court has stayed further action or proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary notificationbe excludedwhile computingthe period referred to in the first proviso 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 notified for acquisition under Section 4 readwith Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land AcquisitionAct. This was followed by a declarationdated 18^"^July, 1988 issued under Section6 :i 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 yvhlch were heard and disposed of by a DivisionBench 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. 4694,47(E-Q3,5428-30,5516,5526-27,5529-30,5532-31,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284.6400,6447-49ot'2002 pagel8of41 •.V t.?> 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 Governnient of NCT culminating in the Issue of a fresh .1 declaration under Section 6 of the Act declaring that the entire area of 72 blghas falling in Khasra No. 1151/3 min (new) had to be acquired for the public purpose of providing a pubilp 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 yalidly 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, j5609,5«4-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49of2002 pagel9of41 % notification under Section 4 had been issued. Re ; Question No. 1 / 5. Section 6 of the 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 may 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 I provision while we come to Question No.2. All that need to be mentioned for the present Is thiat 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) Nbs. 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 page20 of 41 a declarationunder Section6 is quaslied on the ground tliat no public purpose exists to justifytlie proposed acquisition would, however, be a class apart in which event it is obvious that a fresh declaration would be whollyout of place. That is because rf the purpose for which the earlier declaration was issued has been held not to constitute a 'public purpose' within the nleaning of the Act, a second declaration in ^ ; satisfactionofthe very same purposewould 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 & Ann. AIR 1977 SC 594. The argument advanced before ^^ their Lordships in that case was that the cancellationof 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 Girdharilal Amratlal Shodan Ks. State of Guiarat. 1966 SC 1408, the Court repelled the contention and held WP(C)Nos. 4694,4702-C6.5428-30,5516,5526-27.5529-.%, 5532-M,S536, , 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,61g9-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400i6447-49of3002 pagc21of41 that when a notification under Section 6 of the Act is invalid, the Government may, in its place, issue a fresh notification. I 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 ho more. 7. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Cuiarat & Anr. Vs. Bboailal Keshavla^ & Anr.. A\R 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 & Ors.. 0 : 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>No3. 4702-00,5428-30,5516,5336-27,5529-3o! 5532-34,5536, 5609,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of30012 page22of41 9 declarationunder Section 6 proves to be invalid, ineffective I or infructuous for some reasons. Wfiere a notification is invalid,a fresh notification underSection6 could be issued regardless of whether the invalidity is on account of a declaration by the court or the GovernnrientItselfwithdraws 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 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 Uleaalitv is pointed out" fEmphasis supplipHK 8. In fairness to 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 4- 'I V WP(C)NOJ.4694,4702-03,5428-30,55]6,5526-27,5529-30,5532-34,5536' 56D9,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,628-«, 6400,6447-49of2002 page 23 of 41 :• ^ X 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 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 I can be valid only if made within a period of one year from the date the preliminary notificationunder Section 4(1) of the Act was published. This period had, according to the petitioners, expired in the present case for the preliminary i 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 WP(C)Nos. 46?*, 47<H-a»,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 page24ot'41 % A % to be invalid and, therefore,quashed by a competentcourt. He submitted that the provisions of the explanation are availableonly in cases where furtheraction pursuantto the prelimlharynotificationcould not be taken on account of a pending writ petitionor other proceedingsIn which the court had restrained any such action or proceeding but not In cases where a declaration had been made within the time stipulatedfor the same but found to be Invalid and quashed. In support of that submission, Mr Sethi placed heavy reliance upon the judgmentofthe Supreme Court in Padma SundaraRao &Ors. Vs. State ofTamilNadu &Ors.. 2002(3) see 533 and the decisionof their Lordshipsof 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 fand is required for a public purpose.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the WPif?)Nos. 4694.4702-©, 5428-30,5516,5526-27,'5529-30,5532-34,5536, 5M>9,5684-93,5703,6109,6189-90,6232-34,6282,6284,6400,6447-49 of 2002 page25 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 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 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),- (l)published after the commencement of the land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984