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 the villages in which their lands were situated (being part of 12 villages) having been quashed the judgment of the High Court was not being followed and the writ petitioners were about to be dispossessed. 10 grant appropriate relief, the High Court on 15-5-1989 when confronting the Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority, on the subject, observed as follows:

"The Delhi Administration as also the Delhi Development Authority have taken up a very fair stand before us. Their contention is that certain landowners have received compensation and as such they should not be allowed to deal with the land till the compensation is paid back to the Delhi Administration with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date they received the payment till the date they have refunded the amount. The contention raised is quite fair and is accepted. It is further stated by learned counsel for the respondents that no effort would be made to take possession of any land from anybody and the possession already taken of these lands will be restored back to the landowners on receipt of the refund of compensation, if made with interest. It is further contended that• in certain cases, the landowners have been allotted alternate plots in lieu of their land having been acquired and in those. cases, the alternate plots must be surrendered before the landowners can take advantage of the quashing of the notifications. The counsel for the petitioner accepts this suggestion of the respondents. Consequently, we direct that the possession of the petitioners will not be disturbed except in cases where the compensation has been received by the landowners or alternate plots have been allotted, until the compensation amount and the alternate plot is surrendered. Counsel for the petitioners agree that the landowners who have received compensation or have been allotted alternate plots would surrender the same as indicated above within two months from today. All other landowners who have neither received compensation nor any alternate plot are free to deal with their lands the way they like and their possession will not be disturbed by the respondents. Delhi Administration will see to it that the revenue records are amended accordingly. The proper authority, i.e., the Land Acquisition Collector will receive the refund of compensation with 12 per cent interest per annum as well as the surrender of the alternate plots• when and if offered. The writ petitions are disposed of in these terms."

3. The Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority sought a review of the said order on the ground that their counsel appearing then was not authorised to make a concession which concession seemingly a was evident as suggested. The High Court on 5-7-1990 saw through the