( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents to do their public duty of not disturbing the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioner except according to due process of law and after giving a notice of reasonable time and for further relief that the respondents be directed to pay an exemplary amount of compensation for harassing the petitioner by sending officers etc. to dispossess them. The Notifications which are the subject matter of the present petition were upheld by a Full Bench of this Court reported as Roshanara Begum v. Union of India 1996 I Apex Decision (Delhi) 6 which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of India vide its Judgement reported as Murari and others v. Union of India and others (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 15. The present petition, in view of the settled law is, therefore, misconceived and cannot be entertained as the petitioner had earlier impugned the Notifications which were upheld by the Apex Court.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner has not been dispossessed by the respondents. This plea that the petitioner is still in possession of the acquired land is refuted by learned counsel for the respondents and it is reiterated that the necessary steps have already been taken and the petitioner is raising false pleas when all acquisition proceedings have completed. The Judgements reported as Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab and others (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 212 and in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (Dead) by Lrs. (1996) 8 Supreme Court Cases 259 have been cited in this regard.

( 3 ) PARAGRAPH 4 of the first Judgement reads as under:

"it is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood completed by 17-4-1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the panchnama in the presence of the panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession. "

( 4 ) SIMILARLY, in the second Judgment the Supreme Court in Paragraph 9 has stated as follows :-

" It is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that one of the accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording of a memorandum or Panchnama by the LAO in the presence of witnesses winged by him/them and that would constitute taking possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical possession of the acquired land. It is common knowledge that in some cases the owner/interested person may not cooperate in taking possession of the land. "

( 5 ) IN view of the above the plea that the petitioner has remained in possession, cannot be accepted, particularly, when the acquisitions have been finally upheld by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for petitioner has next argued that no amount of compensation has been paid to the petitioner and, therefore, the respondents have no legal right to dispossess them without payment of compensation in view of the settled law as incorporated in relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ). In this regard the respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated in paragraph 8 that the petitioner has not shown any valid document to indicate his ownership over the land in question and in case the petitioner has any grievance with respect to compensation he will be at liberty to take recourse to the provisions, such as, Section 18 of the