JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J.

( 1 ) AGAINST a common judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 44 and 45 of 1969 there were two appeals by special leave to this Court being Civil Appeals Nos. 2024 and 2025 of 1970. While Civil Appeal No. 2025 has been dismissed as withdrawn by the appellants viz. Union of India and Ors. , this appeal directed against the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 1969 alone comes up for consideration on merits.

( 2 ) THE Chief Commissioner, Delhi issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter the Act) on 13-11-1959 for acquiring a large extent of land measuring 34,070 acres of land in and around Delhi for a public purpose, namely, planned development of Delhi. This notification had specifically excluded evacuee land. By reason of this exclusion, the lands of one K. K. Chopra, whose legal representatives are the respondents herein, the land of one Maya Devi Chopra and the lands of some other similarly placed like them came to be excluded from the extent of land notified for acquisition. It is relevant to mention here that K. K. Chopra and Maya Devi Chopra (the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 1970) were displaced persons and they had succeeded in purchasing evacuee land comprised within the limits of the area notified for acquisition. While K. K. Chopra had bought lands comprised in Khasra No. 207 and 569/297, Maya Devi Chopra had bought land comprised in Khasra No. 570/297.

( 3 ) THE exclusion of the lands purchased by K. K. Chopra and Maya Devi Chopra from the acquisition proceedings was short-lived because on 1-7-1961, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi published notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act for acquisition of the evacuee lands also which were originally excluded from the acquisition. The subsequent notification for acquisition of the excluded lands was necessitated, because the Government came to realise that those extents of land were also required if an effective and comprehensive development plan was to be prepared for the development of Delhi.

( 4 ) ALONG with the notification made under Section 4 (1) on 1-7-1961, notifications were also made under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act and by reason of it the enquiry under Section 5a was dispensed with and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed suit. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to take possession of the lands on the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act.

( 5 ) K. K. Chopra and Maya Devi Chopra who felt aggrieved with the acquisition of their lands and that too by resort to notifications under Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Delhi to seek the quashing of the notification. Various contentions were raised to assail the acquisition proceedings and in particular the notifications under Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act were assailed on the ground of delay and non-application of mind. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions but on letters patent appeals being filed, a Division Bench of the High Court sustained the contentions of the petitioners and allowed the appeals and quashed the notifications. Against the judgment of the High Court, the Union of India and Ors. filed two appeals but as already stated one of the appeals has since been withdrawn and the present appeal alone survived for consideration.

( 6 ) IN the view we propose taking of the matter it is not necessary to refer to the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants on the one hand and those of the counsel for the respondents on the other or to adjudicate them on their merit. In the course of the arguments, the respondents expressed their willingness through their counsel that they would give up their challenge to the validity of the acquisition proceedings