ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Application by Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 for being transposed as Petitioners, in S.L.P. (C) No. 10343/98 is allowed.

3. These four appeals are filed by the Appellants herein questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 29.5.98 in a group of Writ Petitions. The appeals before us arise out of the Writ Petition Nos. 4558/98, 4736/98, 709/98 & 12607/1998. Along with these appeals, Contempt Petition (C) No. 62/99 is also listed.

4. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30.3.1995. A local publication was made on 17.5.1996 and the Notification was published in two newspapers on 19.5.96 and on 21.5.1996, in the locality. Thereafter, two corrigenda, one on 26.3.1996 and another on 1.8.96 were also issued. In respect of the second corrigendum, there was local publication on 10.2.1997. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made in the Gazette on 18.12.1997.

5. It may here be noticed that though a vast extent of land was acquired in the above said land acquisition proceedings, the Writ Petitions mentioned above were filed only by a few among the persons whose lands were acquired. In these appeals, we are concerned only with the land belonging to these limited group of Appellants.

6. The High Court upheld the land acquisition proceedings and dismissed the Writ Petitions by judgment dated 29.5.1998. It appears that the stay which was granted by the High Court pending the Writ Petitions, on 19.2.99, stood vacated on 29.5.98 and thereafter, possession of the lands was taken on 15.6.1998.

7. In fact, there is a Certificate on record that possession was so taken by the Government. Though there was earlier some dispute in this behalf, these facts are not now in dispute. Land was acquired for purposes of construction of a Housing Colony under the "Planned Development Scheme" in village Dhimri Pargana, District Moradabad, by the Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad. At the time when the Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 30.3.1995, the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act were invoked and enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. The High Court held that the urgency clause was properly invoked and that a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued within the time limit prescribed under Section 6 of the Act.

8. In these appeals, learned senior Counsel for the Appellants have argued some of the questions which were raised in the High Court. On behalf of the Respondents, we heard Shri. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General and other Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

9. During the course of arguments, several issues concerning the interpretation of Sections 6 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act were raised by the learned senior Counsel for the Appellants. Learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon certain decisions of this Court to contend that these contentions raised by the Appellants could not be accepted. He has also suggested postponement of the date of Section 4(1) Notification rather than quashing the proceedings for that would entail delay and he relied upon the decision of this Court in Ram Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1. In that case, this Court had postponed the date of Notification under Section 4(1), instead of quashing the proceedings.

10. In the above said case, such a course was in fact, adopted and a reference was made to several judgments of this Court in earlier cases, where this Court in the interests of justice, postponed the date of Section 4(1) Notification. Particularly in cases where possession had already been taken, the adoption of a similar procedure appeared in some cases to be necessary.

11. After considering the various contentions that were raised before us, we felt it reasonable that, having regard to the peculiar facts of these cases, interests of justice would be met if the date of issue of Section 4(1) Notification is shi