JUDGMENT

G.N. RAY, J.- Leave granted in all these special leave petitions and the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties made submissions. Since all these matters relate to common questions of law and fact, the matters were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. All these matters arise out of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petitions moved before the said High Court inter alia challenging the validity of acquisition of large tracts of land adjoining the city of Bombay for the purpose of setting up a new township to be known as New Bombay. The State of Maharashtra issued notices under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act between February 1968 and February 1970 for the purpose of acquiring huge tracts of lands covering 86 villages in Trans-Harbour, Panvel and Trans-Thane Creek area for the purpose of planned development and utilisation of the said lands for industrial, commercial and residential purposes. Declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were also issued in 1971 and 1972. The acquisition proceedings were, however, concluded after a long lapse of time by giving awards in 1985 and 1986.

2. Mr G. Ramaswamy has appeared for the appellants in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos. 13719 and 13459 of 1992. Mr U. Lalit has appeared for the appellants in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 14710 of 1992. Mr A.K. Ganguli has appeared in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 15359 of 1992. Mr Ganpule has appeared for the appellants in the rest of the appeals. As all these matters are disposed of by a common judgment, it is not proposed to refer individual arguments raised by the learned counsel separately. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants are to the following effect:

(1) There has been inordinate delay in completion of the acquisition proceedings and such inordinate delay vitiates the acquisition proceedings and the awards made therein.

(2) The purported acquisition proceedings are clearly a colourable device and should be struck down in view of the fact that the sole object of notification issued under Section 4 covering large tracts of lands in 86 villages in 1968 and 1970 was to peg the price of the land as prevailing on the said date of the notification without having regard to the actual requirement of such land.

(3) Acquisition proceedings sought to be initiated without framing a scheme or plan for fulfilment of the stated object were premature and liable to be quashed.

(4) Lands comprising gaothan{Ed.: A village site either existing earlier as evidenced by ruins or still in existence.}, as shown in village records, houses contiguous to existing gaothan and hamlets containing not less than ten households were to be excluded from acquisition proceedings as per the avowed policy of the Government and purported acquisition of the land comprising gaothans and hamlets, in any event, must be held illegal and void.

(5) Even if it is held that acquisition proceedings were valid, suitable directions should be given for allotment of alternative plots as per the scheme formulated in 1966 so that no effect to acquisition should be given without making the plots available to the affected parties.

3. Coming to the contention of inordinate delay in completing the acquisition proceedings thereby rendering acquisition proceedings invalid, the learned counsel have submitted that the Government of Maharashtra was entirely responsible for the delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. The acquiring authority miserably failed to explain the long delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any valid explanation for such inordinate delay, particularly in the absence of any statutory permission or restraint against passing of the awards, the exercise of power to acquire lands according to convenience and caprices of