( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions relief claimed is the same. All the petitioners are impugning notification dated 23rd June, 1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act ) and declaration dated 22nd June, 1990 issued under Section 6 of act. There is some dispute about the dates of publication of these notifications which would be taken note of at appropriate stage. What needs to be noted at this stage is that all these petitions were heard earlier by a Division bench of this court comprising of Mahinder narain, J. and J. B. Goel, J. Lead case was Writ no. 2556/1990. After hearing the parties the two Judges differed with each other. In their separate pronouncements dated 11th september, 1996, while Mahinder Narain, J held that the impugned notifications were illegal and quashed the same, according to j. B. Goel, J. , there was no infirmity in the two notifications, which were perfectly legal and valid and, therefore, writ petitions were required to be dismissed. In view of these divergent opinions, matter was referred to the third Judge. However, for some reason or the other the matter kept pending and ultimately entrusted to me in December, 2003. Mr. P. N, Lekhi, Senior Advocate, argued the matter for the petitioners and those arguments were adopted by other counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. S. N. Kumar, senior Advocate also supplemented these submissions. On behalf of Union of India Ms. Gita Luthra made the submissions and Mr. J. M. Sabharwal, Senior Advocate, argued the matter for the DDA.

( 2 ) BEFORE coming to the grounds of challenge to the two notifications, it would be appropriate to give some background which led to passing of these notifications and the subject-matter involved.

( 3 ) THE land in question is large tract covering numerous villages, 15 villages to be precise, on the bank of river Yamuna. Total area of the land is 3500 hectares. Purpose of acquisition is Planned Development of Delhi, viz. Channelization of Yamuna River, notification dated 23rd June, 1989 under section 4 of the Act was issued which, according to the respondents, was published in the Delhi Gazette on 23rd June, 1989, in veer Arjun (Hindi) on 21st July, 1989 and in the Times of India (English on 22nd July, 1989 and was also notified in the locality on 17th July, 1989. Some of the persons, likely to be affected thereby had filed objection under Section 5a of the Act. These objections were considered by the Land Acquisition collector, who submitted separate reports in respect of each village and after consideration thereof the Government issued declaration dated 22nd June, 1990 under Section 6 of the Act. According to the respondents, this declaration was duly published in the Delhi gazette on 22nd June, 1990.

( 4 ) IT may be noted at this stage that whereas in Section 4 notification, land was described by boundaries, declaration under Section 6 gave specifically the names of nine villages and also mentioned khasra numbers and area comprised in each khasra number which was to be acquired. Simultaneously with Section 6 declarations Government also issued notification dated 22nd June, 1990 under section 17 (1) of the Act.

( 5 ) WHEN Writ Petition No. 2556/1990 came up for hearing on 10th August, 1990, while issuing show cause notice the Division Bench ordered status quo.

( 6 ) WHEN the matter was earlier finally argued before the Division Bench which led to passing of two separate opinions dated 11th september, 1996, the petitioners pressed primarily three sets of challenges to the notification. These were: (a) notifications were in breach of the provisions of the Act; (b) no plans were prepared for development of the area covered by river Yamuna and without these plans area could not be acquired for particular purpose; and (c) manner and method postulated by the provision of the act dealing with the notifications for acquisition had not been adhered to. It was also contended that a l