ORDER

1. These petitions, though bulky, show much ado about nothing. 73 writ petitions were allowed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 18-11-1988 vide judgment reported as B.R. Gupta v. Union of India 1. Undeniably the petitioners then approaching that Court were from eleven villages affected by notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and none of those petitioners had challenged the acquisition in Village Saidul Azab, though it was one of the chain villages covered in the acguisition. It is true that Village Saidul Azab did figure to be mentioned in the judgment but apparently as a detail in the appreciation of facts. Later relying on the judgment in Gupta easel a Single Bench of the Delhi High C(urt in CWs Nos. 2567-2568 of 1987 decided on 9-3-1989 accorded the s~me treatment to Village Saidul Azab. Resultantly, by these two decisions notification under Section 6 relating to 12 villages in its entirety stood quashed.

2. Another batch of petitions CW No. 1373 of 1989 etc. came up before another Division Bench of the High Court in which grievance voiced by the writ petitioners was that despite notification under Section 6 of the Act relating to