( 1 ) PETITIONER, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its office at Delhi, has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions for quashing the decision of the Lt Governor dated 18. 6. 2002, whereby representation made under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as the "act") for de-notification of the lands belonging to the petitioner, came to be rejected. The action is challenged on the ground of discrimination as also the exercise being arbitrary and without following the policy.

( 2 ) IT is contended that the representation was made on behalf of the petitioner on 6. 9. 2000, a copy of which is placed on record at page 153. It is contended that the said representation is in continuation of earlier representations dated 16. 11. 1995, 3. 3. 1999 and 1. 6. 1999, etc. for release of lands owned and possessed by the petitioner society at village Sadhora Khurd, popularly known as Anand Parvat, Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that one, Rai Sahib Lala Kedar Nath formed Ramjas Society in Delhi for imparting education. The said society changed its name to Ramjas Foundation in the year 1967. It is imparting education through 20 schools and one college in Delhi, where more than 15000 students are being trained with the aid and assistance of 700 teachers/lecturers.

( 3 ) IT is further contended that the main sources of income to run the aforesaid institutions is the rent of lands measuring 780 Bighas 14 biswas situated in village Sadora Khurd, where more than 1000 tenants built up their houses, structures, etc and are carrying on business, establishments, shops, household industries and godowns for the last 50 years.

( 4 ) VIDE notification issued under section 4 of the Act dated 13. 11. 1959, large area admeasuring 34000 acres of land was sought to be acquired for "planned development of Delhi". Declarations under section 6 of the Act, were made on different dates. So far as the lands covered in the present proceedings are concerned, declaration under Section 6 of the Act were made in 1968 and 1969 ( five notifications on different dates ). Previous proceedings :

( 5 ) FROM the record, it transpires that the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 106/78 in this Court challenging the notification on various grounds. However, the petition was dismissed on 31. 1. 1978 by a Division Bench of this Court. Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed SLP (C) 2213/78 before the Apex Court, which also came to be dismissed by the Apex Court. The decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is reported as AIR 1993 SC 852. From the text of the judgment, it is very clear that earlier the petition, being CWP 213/73, was filed in this Court and was dismissed as withdrawn on 30. 3. 1977. Thereafter, another writ petition No. 106/78 was filed challenging the notification, declaration and notices issued under sections 4,6,9 and 10 of the Act, which was dismissed by the High Court.

( 6 ) BEFORE the Apex Court, contention was raised that an opportunity of hearing while deciding the objections was not granted, as contemplated under section 5a of the Act. Addl. Solicitor General appearing in the matter, during the course of hearing, placed an order of the Collector dated 23. 2. 1968. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court ( AIR 1993 SC 852) clearly shows that Ramjas Foundation was represented through Shri Rattan Lal Gupta, advocate, who was given a personal hearing. On perusal of the document, the Apex Court pointed out that full opportunity of hearing through counsel was afforded to Ramjas Foundation. It has been further pointed out that Ramjas Foundation Society was also allowed to file their objections, if so desired, but Shri Rattan Lal Gupta, learned advocate for the petitioner society, declined and stated that there was nothing more to the previous objection petition. After b