( 1 ) I have had the benefit of going through the draft judgement prepared by my learned brother and am in respectful agreement with him on all issues, except one.

( 2 ) THE divergence of views is in respect of the question whether the inquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (the Act) in respect of villages Chattarpur, Khanpur, Satbari, Tughlakabad, Deoli and Khirkee was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. A Division Bench of this Court in balak Ram vs. Union of India, 37 (1989) DLT 150 (hereinafter referred to as Balak ram-III) held that the inquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act in respect of these villages (and also village Tigri) was vitiated. I am of opinion that this view still holds the field. Since there is no case before us in respect of village Tigri, I am not making any comment about the inquiry held in respect of this village.

( 3 ) WITH respect to villages Shayoorpur, Khirkee, Maidan Garhi and Rajpur khurd, I agree with my learned brother, though for different reasons, that the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was valid.

( 4 ) AS regards the cases pertaining to village Neb Sarai, I agree with my learned brother that these cases have to be dismissed because the Petitioners in these cases did not file any objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Similarly, I agree that all cases, in respect of other villages also, where objections were not filed under section 5-A of the Act should all be dismissed.

( 5 ) THE primary reason for my respectful disagreement is the way I read and understand three important judgements extensively referred to by learned counsels for the parties, namely, Abhey Ram vs. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 421, Delhi administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. , (1999) 7 SCC 44 (hereinafter referred to as Uban-I) and Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. , (2000) 7 SCC 296 (hereinafter referred to as Uban-II ). I am of the view that the validity or otherwise of the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in respect of the above six (or even seven) villages was not all in issue in either of these cases and so was not dealt with by the supreme Court. In fact, neither Abhey Ram nor Gurdip Singh Uban had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and so the question of examining the validity of the inquiry in respect of their objections could not even arise for consideration before the Supreme Court.

( 6 ) MOREOVER, another Division Bench of this Court in Hari Ram Kakkar vs. Union of India and ors, 2002 (61) DRJ 86 (DB) once again came to the same conclusion as in Balak Ram-III and held that the inquiry under Section 5-A of the act in respect of village Satbari (one of the above seven villages) was vitiated. I find no reason to take a view different from that expressed by two different Division benches of this Court in Balak Ram-III and Hari Ram Kakkar.

( 7 ) ON 5th November, 1980 and 25th November, 1980, the Respondents issued two Notifications under Section 4 of the Act seeking to acquire almost 50,000 bighas of land in 13 villages in Delhi. The Notification dated 5th November, 1980 pertained to villages Tughlakabad, Tigri, Deoli, Khanpur, Saidul Ajaib, Neb Sarai, hauz Rani and Khirkee. The Notification dated 25th November, 1980 pertained to villages Chhatarpur, Satbari, Maidan Garhi, Shayoorpur and Rajpur Khurd.

( 8 ) DECLARATIONS under Section 6 of the Act were made in respect of these lands on 27th May, 1985, 6th June, 1985, 7th June, 1985 and 26th June, 1985. Of course, the declarations were made after inviting objections under Section 5-A of the act.

( 9 ) A large number of writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the validity of the Notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act. These writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in Munni Lal vs. Union of India, ilr (1984) I Delhi 469. The decision rendered by the Division Bench in Munni Lal was not challenged by anybody a