Judgement

MITTER, J. (on behalf of Wanchoo, C. J., Bachawat J. and himself) :- This is a group of five Writ Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging in four cases the validity of land acquisition proceeding started by a notification dated November 13, 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and declarations contained in other notifications dated March 18, 1866 onwards under Section 6 of the said Act and for other incidental reliefs including the issue of appropriate writs for the purpose. Various persons have joined as petitioners in three of the applications. In Writ Petition No. 114 of 1966 the petitioners number 61. They all own lands in village Mandawali Fazilpur, on Patpur Gunj Road within the Union territory of Delhi, the notification of the declaration under Section 6 having been made on March 18, 1966. In Writ Petition No. 216 of 1966 there are 71 petitioners who also own lands in the same village. Their complaint is based on the same notification under Section 4 and a notification dated July 12, 1966 under Section 6 of the Act. In Writ Petition No.223 of 1966 the single petitioner is Pandit Lila Ram who owned lands in villages Masjid Moth, Raipur Khurd and Shahpur Jat respectively within the Union territory of Delhi. His complaint is based on a Section 4 notification dated September 3, 1957, a notification dated April 15, 1961 under Section 6 of the Act and several awards of Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi made in 1961. In Writ petition No. 252 of 1966, there are eight petitioners who owned lands in village Kotla at Patparganj Road within the Union territory of Delhi. Their grievance is against Section 4 notification dated November 13, 1959 and a notification dated June 14, 1961 under Section 6 of the Act. In Writ Petition No. 85 of 1967 the sole petitioner is one Rai Bahadur Sohan Lal who owned land in village Kilokri on the Delhi-Mathura Road within the Union territory of Delhi. His grievance is against Section 4 notification dated November 13, 1959, a notification dated July 27, 1961 under Section 6 of the Act and an award dated February 16, 1962.

2. Although there are some distinctive features in some of the petitions to be mentioned later, the common attack is based on the judgment of this Court delivered on February 9, 1966 in State of Madhya Pradesh v. V. P. Sharma, (1966) 3 SCR 557. That case arose out of proceedings for acquisition of land in eleven villages in Madhya Pradesh for the steel plant at Rourkela. There, a notification had been issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on May 16, 1949 declaring that lands in eleven named villages were likely to be needed for a public purpose i. e., the erection of a niron and steel plant. Thereafter, notifications were issued under Section 6 from time to time and some lands in village Chhawani were acquired in the year 1956. In August 1960 a fresh notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued proposing to acquire Ac 486.17 of land in the said village. Some owners of the land in the village who were affected by the notification filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the notification under Section 6. The High Court accepted their contention whereupon the State of Madhya Pradesh came up to this Court in appeal. It was held by this Court that Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were integrally connected and that acquisition always began, with a notification under Section 4 (1) followed by consideration of all objections thereto under Section 5-A and a declaration under Section 6. According to this Court, once a declaration under Section 6 was made the notification under Section 4 (1) was exhausted and the latter section was not a reservoir from which the Government might from time to time draw out land and make declaration with respect to it successively. The ultimate conclusion was that there could be no successive notifications under Section 6 with respect to land in a locality specified in one notifi