ORDER :

1. Leave granted. Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court could, while deciding the writ petitions filed by the Respondents for quashing the acquisition of their land, pass interim orders and compel Respondent No. 1 - Government of NCT of Delhi to issue notification making circle rates as the prime criteria for determination of the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') and then direct that the same shall be made applicable to the acquisitions made prior to issue of notification is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals.

2. The land of the Respondents was acquired for construction of Depot, Staff quarters and TSS of Inderlok Mundka Corridor of Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II. Notification under Section 4 was issued on 7.6.2007 and the declaration made under Section 6 was published on 23.10.2007. After issuing notice under Sections 9 and 10, the Land Acquisition Collector passed the award and fixed market value of the acquired land.

3. The Respondents challenged the acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition Nos. 2109 and 5480 of 2008 and prayed for following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari/Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions thereby quashing the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 07.06.2007. Section 6of L.A. At and Section 17 of L.A. Act dated 23.10.2007 and the proceedings and award, if any passed thereof in respect of the residential properties of the Petitioners as detailed in para No. 2 of the petition declaring the same as illegal unconstitutional and ultra-vires;

(ii) In alternative issue a writ of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to allot the Petitioners residential plots of same area in the nearby authorized residential colony, in case the acquisition is held to be valid and to give appropriate compensation to the Petitioners at the basis of auction reserved price of DDA, in the nearby area or in tune of user of the property for commercial purpose by the DMRC.

(iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari/Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions thereby de-notifying the land of the Petitioners with the directions to handover the possession of their respective plots to them alongwith damages;

(iv) Cost be also awarded.

(v) Pass any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents.

4. On 2.4.2008, the High Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector to deposit 80% of the amount of compensation in the Court. Thereafter, the writ Petitioners were permitted to withdraw 80% of the compensation. On 01.10.2008, 17.2.2009, 26.4.2009, 21.5.2010, 9.7.2010, 24.9.2010, 26.11.2010 and 4.2.2011, the High Court passed the following orders:

01.10.2008

The amount representing 80% of the tentative compensation deposited by the Respondents in this Court be withdrawn by the Petitioners without prejudice to their rights in this writ petition. Before releasing the amount the Registrar shall satisfy himself about the identity of the claimants. The Petitioners shall also furnish indemnity bond.

It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the circle rate for area in question fixed by the Government itself is ` 13,700/- per square yard which is in respect of category ?G? locality and the land in question which is acquired is slated in village Mundka which also falls in category ?G?.

Their submission is that the LAC totally ignored the aforesaid circle rate and fixed the tentative compensation at the meager rate of ` 1000/- per square yard which according to the Learned Counsel shows lack of bona fides on the part of L.A.C. in fixing compensation at dismally low rate. Mr. Poddar, on the other hand, submits that no such document is produced by the Petitioners nor any averments were made in this behalf in this petition. He also states that the aforesaid circle rat