( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a notification dated 4th of April 1964 under Section 4, a declaration dated 7th of December 1966 under Section 6 and notice dated 8th of June 1967 under Section 9 of the Delhi Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of land in perpetual tenancy of the petitioner, bearing Khasra No. 19 min, measuring 99 bighas 4 bighas in Village Okhala. By anadditional affidavit, placing on record certain subtequent events, the petitioner has also claimed a declaration that the entire proceedings for the. acquisition of the land have lapsed.

( 2 ). In pursuance of the notifitanon under Section 4, followed by the declaration under Section 6 and the notice dated 8th of June 1967, the petitioner filed, within the time allowed for that purpose, objections and claim to compensation under Section 9 of the Act, Thereafter, no proceedings were held. The petitioner was not notified of ariy progress despite reminders dated 22nd of February 1971, 19th of April 1972 and 6th of December 1979 (Annexure P-l to P-III respectively to the wirt petition ).

( 3 ). In October 1982, on the basis of some rumour that acquisition proceedings were being taken up, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 4th of October 1982 challenging the said notification and declaration, inter alia, on the ground that there was unreasonable delay in the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings.

( 4 ). After Rule Nisi was issued, the writ petition was directed to be heard along with another writ petition, being C. W. P. 701/81- Roshanara Begum v Union of India and others. That case was subsequently referred to a Full Bench but it has not yet been disposed of.

( 5 ). On or about 5th of February 1989, the Priest Incharge of the petitioner Church again heard rumours that an award bad been made but the petitioner had not received any notice of the same. The petioner, through counsel, served and. notice dated 6th of February 1983 under registered A. D. cover, on the Land Acquisition Collector apprising him of the said rumour and requested him to inform the petitioner if any such had been made, and award if so, the number and date of the award and to furnish acopy thereof. No reply was received from the Collector despile a reminder sent to him on 29th of March 1989. On 4th of April 1989, the petitioner s counsel personaly called on the Collectorr. He seat for;the Tehsildar, who disclosed that an award had been made in the year !986 but no intimation of making he award had been sent to the petitioner. On the 8th April 1989 the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the award and came to know, for the thirs time that the award bearing No 76/86-87 had been made purportedly on 17th of September, 1986. All this was slated in the addition, affidavit dated 23th of April 1989,filed en beha!f of the petitioner.

( 6 ). It was also alieged that on inpection of the record, counsel for the petitioner did not find any. indication,much less evidency, of any enquiry under Section 11, or of the award having been made with the previous approval of the appropriate Government or any officer authorised in this behalf, as required by the first proviso to Section 11 of the Act. Further, it was alleged that the purported award had been made after the expiry of 19 years from the service on the petitioner of notice under Section 9 of the Act and that too after the change of several Collectors in the meanwhile, that the collector did not give any notice of the award to the petitioner as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, and that the petitioner had reason to believe that the award was not made on the date it is purported to have been made, but had been ante-dated.

( 7 ). On 19th of March 1990, when the case was placed before the Court for directions, counsel for the petitioner specifically invited attention to the provisions of the two proviso