( 1 ) THE challenge in these connected writ petitions is to the validity of acquisition proceedings which have been initiated by the issuance of Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 5th and 25th November, 1980.

( 2 ) THE main arguments have been addressed in Civil Writ Petition No. 426 of 1981. with regard to the validity of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, it is necessary to advert to the facts in this case in some detail. The facts of the other cases are similar to Civil Writ Petition No. 426 of 1981. except the date of the Notification and the villages in respect of which the said notification under section 4 has been issued.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that the land of the petitioner Munni Lal is situate in village Satbari. There is in existence a Master Plan of Delhi which came in to effect on 1st September, 1962 under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act. The said Master Plan covers the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi and indicates the land use therein. According to the Master Plan, village Satbari is shown in the agricultural green belt an,d is outside the urbanizable limits. The land therein can be used for agricultural and allied purposes and certain uses such as places of worship, school, library etc. are also permitted after obtaining approval from the specified Authorities.

( 4 ) ON 5th November, 1980 the Lt. Governor issued notification under section. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in which it was, inter alia, stated that land in villages Tughlakabad. Tigri, Deoli, Khanplur, Said-ul-ajaib, Neb Sarai, Hauz Rani and Khirki were required for public purpose, namely, "for Planned Development of Delhi". Three types of lands were, however, exempted from the purview of this notification and they were Government land, land already notified under section 4 or 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and land in respect of which lay out plan/building plans were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi before 5th November. 1980. By the said notification persons could file objections to the acquisition within thirty days of the publication of the Notification. On 17th November, 1980 a similar notification under section 4 of the Act was issued in respect of a number of villages including village Komdli, which is the subject matter of challenge in other writ petitions. On 25th November, 1980 land in revenue estates of villages Chhatarpur, Satbari, Maidangarhi, Shyyoorpur and Rajpur Khurd was notified as, being proposed to be acquired for the Planned Development of Delhi.

( 5 ) IN pursuance to the said notifications under section 4 of the Act, some of the petitioners filed objections under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. As already mentioned hereinabove, no further notification under section 6 of the Act has been issued except in the case of village Kondli.

( 6 ) WITHOUT waiting for the issuance of the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein it is prayed that the notification, under section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act should be quashed. The main contentions of the petitioner, which were argued before us, were that when land was already being used as per the Master Plan, it could not be acquired for a purpose of "planned Development of Delhi" unless there was another specific plan in existence. It was submitted that there had been no application of mind at the time when the notification under section 4 was issued and, in any case. there had been a colourable exercise of power in Issuance of the Notification as the real purpose in issuing the notification was to freeze the land. In this connection it was stated that the requirement of the land, if any, after a long period of time, say twenty years, was too remote and acquisition for land to be used after twenty years was not contemplated by the Land Acquisition Act. In other words, the content