( 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, 1894 (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