The decision to regularize the colony did not render the acquisition proceedings illegal. The court sustained the Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act and directed the petitioners to make a representation for denotification of the land under Section 48 of the Act.

( 1 ) IN both these writ petitions, challenge is to the Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) in respect of the land pertaining to the same village, namely, Poothkalan popularly known as mange Ram Park, Harshdev Park Extension of Budh Vihar, Delhi. Notification under Section 4 is No. F. 9 (16)/80-Landb dated 11 December 1981 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16 April 1984.

( 2 ) THE stand of the petitioners is that the erstwhile owners converted this land into plots and sold the same to various persons, including the petitioners, much before the issuance of the aforesaid Notifications. The petitioners built up their houses, rooms, structures and boundary walls thereupon; they are in actual physical possession of the land and houses standing thereon and are actually living and residing there. It is also pleaded that over the land, subject matter of acquisition proceedings, a colony known as budh Vihar, Phase-II has already come up. It is argued that, on the one hand the land is sought to be acquired and on the other hand, a decision has been taken by the government of India, Ministry of Works and housing to consider regularisation of this colony. Reference in this respect is made to the orders dated 16 February 1977 and 3 july 1982. Order dated 16 February 1977 (annexure P-1), inter alia, records that the government had appointed a Committee on 26 August 1974 to make a case by case study in respect of all unauthorised colonies which have come up in Delhi, particularly before 15 June 1972, with a view to take a decision in regard to the future of such colonies. The Committee submitted its report on 26 February 1975 which was examined by the government and it was decided that various unauthorised colonies which had come up in Delhi, including those around villages outside the Lal Dora as also the unauthorised extensions of approved colonies from time to time would be regularised on the terms and conditions set out therein. Para 6 of the terms and conditions stipulates that colonies which have been notified for acquisition, would also be considered for regulation and wherever necessary, other steps would be taken.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners, therefore, in nutshell, is that since the colony in question is one of the unauthorised colonies in respect of which decision was taken to regularise on terms and conditions contained in the aforesaid circulars, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid decision, the petitioners cannot challenge the validity of Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the act, which were issued in exercise of statutory powers and are thus, statutory in nature. It is submitted that the Act is a complete code in itself and once Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have been issued, the land, subject matter of acquisition, could be released, before its possession is taken, only by passing an appropriate Order/notification under Section 48 of the Act. In support, he has referred to a decision of a learned Single judge of this Court in the case of Moolchand gaur Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors. reported in 2002 (65) DRJ 313, wherein many other judgments of this court as well as of the Supreme Court on the issue have been noted and considered.

( 5 ) IN so far as the legal position is concerned, we are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that merely because on the subject land an unauthorised colony has come up and now a decision has been taken to regularise it, the acquisition proceedings are rendered illegal and are, therefore, liable to be quashed.

( 6 ) A policy decision simplicitor has no statutory force and cannot negate the decision taken by the Government in exercise of its statutory powers contained in the Act for a