( 1 ) THE Petitioner is in the third round of litigation in respect of its property admeasuring 22 bigha and 1 biswa in village Bhartal, Tehsil mehrauli, Delhi.

( 2 ) A Notification under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued on 13th December, 2000 by the Respondents proposing to acquire land for a public purpose, namely construction of Dwarka Phaseac II under the planned development of Delhi. Thereafter, on considering the objections of parties a declaration under Section 6 of the act was issued on 7th December, 2001 acquiring 2904 bigha and 16 biswa of land. In view of the urgency in acquisition, the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act were invoked on 15th March, 2002 and possession of almost the entire acquired area was taken over on or about 14th August, 2002. The land of the Petitioner is roughly 0. 76% of the entire acquired area.

( 3 ) SOMETIME in April 2002 the Petitioner filed a writ petition being CWP 2453/2002 challenging the validity of Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. During the pendency of that writ petition, a restraint order was passed on 16th April, 2002 preventing the Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioner. That writ petition (for convenience referred to as the first writ petition) came to be finally heard by a Division bench of this Court which upheld the acquisition and dismissed the writ petition by a judgment and order dated 4th September, 2003. The decision of this Court is reported as Raheja Hospital and Psychiatric research Institute v. Land Acquisition collector and ors. , 2003 (70) DRJ 601 (DB ).

( 4 ) IT is important to note that while dismissing the first writ petition, this Court held that what was constructed on the acquired land was not a farm-house but a hospital. It was also noted by the Court that an award had been made in respect of the acquired land under Section 11 of the Act.

( 5 ) THE Petitioner filed a petition in the supreme Court for special leave to appeal being SLP (C) No. 18080/2003 against the decision of this Court dated 4th September, 2003 but that SLP was dismissed on 9th october, 2003.

( 6 ) THE Respondents then sought to take possession of the acquired land some time in december, 2003. However, on the oral request of the Petitioner, the Vice Chairman, delhi Development Authority (DDA) reconsidered the matter and agreed to grant some time to the Petitioner to vacate the acquired land. On 6th January, 2004 the petitioner submitted a formal request to the dda seeking six months time to decide its immediate future and take steps to rehabilitate its patients. The Respondents apparently agreed to the extension of time sought by the Petitioner and did not take any steps to take physical possession of the acquired land.

( 7 ) ON 19th March, 2004 the Petitioner again made a request to the DDA seeking 12 months time to make alternative arrangements and vacate the acquired land. This request was partially acceded to by the dda and it was agreed to give the Petitioner time till June, 2004 to vacate the acquired land.

( 8 ) ON 26th May, 2004 the Petitioner made a request to the Lt. Governor to denotify the land under Section 48 of the Act. This was in continuation of a similar request made on 28th March, 2002 and 12th March, 2004.

( 9 ) ON 3rd June, 2004 the Petitioner filed a second writ petition in this Court being WP (C) 9743/2004 in which it was prayed that the Petitioner be allotted an alternate piece of land to run and manage its institute or in the alternative to direct the Respondents to decide the representations made by. the petitioner under Section 48 of the Act.

( 10 ) THE second writ petition was considered by this Court and by a judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2005, it was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/ -.

( 11 ) WHILE dismissing the second writ petition, the allegation of the Petitioner that it was discriminated, against vis-A -vis some other similarly placed persons was considered and rejecte