JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel. Perused the written submissions.

2. These appeals- one by the State of Gujarat [S.L.P. (C) 27350/95] and the other by the Reliance Petroleum Limited [S.L.P.(C) No. 27230/95] arise out of the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dated 5th September, 1995 in Special Civil Application No. 13525/94.

3. By the judgment under appeal the High Court has quashed (a) the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 15.2.1993, (b) the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 18.5.1994 and (c) the award passed on 12.12.94 insofar as they related to the lands of the writ petitioners and other objectors (totalling 89 in number) belonging to villages Padana and Meghpur.

4. At the instance of the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 27230/95 (hereinafter called the "appellant company") machinery under Land Acquisiition Act was put into operation under Part VII of the Act for acquiring approximately an extent of 2.500 acres of lands situated in the villages of Moti Chavdi, Padana, Meghpur, Lalpur, Sikka and Gagva. Before the High Court the lands measuring about 877 acres belonging to 9 individuals situated in Padana and Meghpur was the subject matter. It appears in between (namely when the matter was pending before the High Court and the matter was heard and concluded in this Court) the appellant Company was able to settle the matter with 70 individuals, leaving 19 individuals holding an extent of 241.34 acres for settling the issue. In other words we are concerned now with the lands situated in Padana and Meghpur villages belonging to 19 individuals measuring 241.34 acres only.

5. Before the High Court the writ petitioners (namely Respondents 1 to 3 in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 27230/95) raised only three contentions. They were that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969, that there was non-compliance of provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules and that there was no hearing as required was afforded and thereby there was violation of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. The learned Judges impressed by the arguments of the writ petitioners accepted the above three contentions and consequently quashed the notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6 and awards passed under the Land Acquisition Act as mentioned above at the outset.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, these appeals by special leave have been preferred.

7. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Company submitted that the High Court on the facts of the case ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially when the object of the Petitioners before the High Court was for getting an unrealistic price for their lands. He also submitted that their conduct in not challenging the legality and validity of notification under Section 4(1) declaration under Section 6 of the Act immediately after their publications and they having waited till the award was passed and finding that the award was not to their satisfaction and filing reference under Section 18 of the Act, disentitles them from moving the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such conduct on the part of the writ petitioners should have been taken due note of by the High Court for rejecting the relief. He also brought to our notice one factual position that out of 89 persons who challenged the land acquisition proceedings, only 19 are in the field and the rest have accepted the compensation (of course higher amount than the one awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer) and that shows that the sole object of the petitioners before the High Court (respondents nos. 1 to 3 herein) was to get the unrealistic price. In support of this he also invited our attention to paragra