( 1 ) THE appellant herein had filed cwp. No. 1509/92 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 31. 7. 2003. Although no body appeared on behalf of the appellants at the time of hearing, writ petition was dismissed on merits. The appellants on coming to know of the said dismissal order, moved CM. 9692/2003 seeking recall of the order dated 31. 7. 2003 on the ground that counsel for the appellants had missed out the matter when it was listed for hearing on 31. 7. 2003. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge thought it appropriate to hear the appellants on merits of the writ petition itself. However, after hearing the matter on merits, the learned single Judge passed impugned order dated 1. 9. 2003 maintaining his earlier order dated 31. 7. 2003 and dismissed the writ petition by giving additional reasons while dealing with the contentions raised by counsel for the appellants at the time of hearing. This appeal is preferred against the said order and judgment dated 1. 9. 2003. Although no formal notice was issued in this appeal, we heard the matter at length at the admission stage itself since counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector as well as DDA (respondents herein) were also present. This is how we proceed with the order in this appeal.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the appellants that the appellants 1 to 4 are tenants in occupation of premises RZ-1, Khasra No. 292/2, Village nangloi Sayed, Delhi for the last more than 20 years under late Sh. Partap Singh, the owner thereof and father of the appellant no. 5. CWP. No. 1509/92 was filed by the appellants seeking directions against the respondents not to interfere in their right to peacefully enjoy the aforesaid suit property and not to disturb their possession and further not to demolish the whole or any part of structure existing thereon. It was the case of the appellants in the said writ petition that in the year 1969, Delhi Administration by virtue of Notification issued under Section 6 of the land Acquisition Act, acquired the whole of the village Nangloi Sayyed except the built up properties. Since the property in question belonging to the father of appellant no. 5 was built up property, the same was left out from the acquisition in the Award made by Land acquisition Collector. It was also stated that the DDA by virtue of Notification dated 20. 2. 1981 issued under Section 12 of the dda Act declared 62 village abadies mentioned in the Schedule of the said notification as development areas which included abadi area of Village Nangloi Sayyad as well. However, by subsequent Notification dated 22. 6. 87 the DDA was pleased to denotify 55 Urban Villages including the village nangloi Sayyed from the provision of the delhi Development Act. The effect of the said notification was that the DDA was no longer concerned with this Village land and it was only MCD which could take development of the village. In the year 1985-86 house existing on the suit property was converted into a factory and was let out to the appellant no. 1 in 1986. Since then appellant no. 1 is running a factory of Auto parts. Appellants 2 to 4 are also tenants in other portions of the said property and doing their businesses therefrom.

( 3 ) ON 21. 7. 1986 the DDA issued notice under Section 30 (i) of the Delhi Development act on the father of appellant no. 5 calling upon him to show cause as to why construction which had been raised on the said plot be not demolished. Father of appellant no. 5 filed Writ Petition No. 1962/86 challenging the aforesaid action of DDA. This writ petition was dismissed on 30. 1. 1987. However, in an application made subsequently seeking review of the aforesaid order, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass order dated 6. 4. 1987 holding, inter alia, that there was no dispute between the parties about the said area having been declared Development Area by DDA and the declaration of urbanisation of the village where the pr