( 1 ). Petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition, inter alia, praying that by issuance of appropriate writ, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) bearing no. F. 15 (III) / 59/lsg and notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 12. 11. 1968 bearing No. F. 4 (98)/65-Landh be quashed and set aside and the respondent be directed to denotify the land in question.

( 2 ). After the issuance of the notifications, as aforesaid, award has been made which was challenged before this Court by filing civil writ petition No. 1589/86. This petition was dismissed. It may be noted that the petitioner had no right or title to file the petition, as the land at the relevant time stood in the name of his father and the petition was also filed by his father. The contention raised before the Court is that the application under Section 48 (1) of the Act is made to the Lt. Governor for denotifying the land in question. On notice being issued, Suresh P. Padhy has filed an affidavit on behalf of the DDA and has pointed out as under:

"6. That these Khasra numbers were the subject matter of CWP 1539 of 1986 titled Kashmir Chand Godha v. UOI and Ors. By that writ petition the acquisition proceedings were challenged on the ground of delay for acquiring the land in question. The petition was dismissed on 20. 9. 2001. After the dismissal of the said petition, the present petition is untenable in law. The petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches and liable to be dismissed for this ground alone. It has been laid down in catena of cases that once acquisition proceedings are complete the land vests in State free from all encumbrances. It is pertinent to mention that large number of writ petitions, involving the same issues were dismissed by the Full Bench of this Hon ble Court on 14. 12. 1995 and the LP was also dismissed on 1,11. 1996. 7. That the acquisition became final when the possession is taken by the Collector. On taking over possession the land vest in government, free from all encumbrances. The Hon ble Supreme Court in catena of cases has laid down that after taking over possession of the land there is no provision under the Act to divest the title which was validly vested in the State. 8. That as per the land use plan of MPD-62 the land in question was indicated under the District Park. Further as per land use plan of mpd-2001 the land under reference is falling in the District Part. In the Zonal Plan of Zone F approved by the Government of India on 5. 6. 1998, the land use of area in question is District Park. The deponent craves leave to refer to the zonal plan, land use plan MPD- 2001 and MPD-62 at the time of arguments. 9. That the land of Khasra No. 166 and 167 is required for road construction of Mehrauli/aurobindo Marg and the remaining land is to be used as recreational/regional park and partly for transportation. The road to be constructed by MCD and part of the road has already been constructed by them as per revised alignment. "

( 3 ). It is also stated by the respondent that wider public interest is liable to be borne in mind while exercising the power of granting stay and injunction while entertaining writ petition. It is also required to be borne in mind that on account of proceedings initiated earlier the authorities could not take action in the matter.

( 4 ). As against this, it is submitted that the land is in possession of the petitioner and therefore considering the provisions contained in Section 48 (1) of the Act, the application, which is made to the Lt. Governor is required to be disposed of first. Section 48 (1) reads as under: " (1) Except in the case provided for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. "

( 5 ). The question, which is required to be determined, is whether possession was taken or not. It is contended before