The satisfaction of the appropriate government under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is a condition precedent for the issue of the declaration under that section, and the Lt. Governor, as the appropriate government, has to express his satisfaction personally, and cannot delegate this duty to any of his Secretaries.

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Writ petitions 48 to 57 ot 1972 also. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1162 of 1971 is one of the three partners of the firm known as Messrs Jain Optical Industries, carrying on business of optical goods as a tenant in shops No. 2395/1, 2397 to 2400, Ballimaran, Delhi. The petitioners in the other petitions are tenants in other shops, all housed in building known as Kothi Nawab Loharowali, Bazar Ballimaran, Delhi (No. 2376 to 2382, 2395 to 2402), which has been acquired for the purpose of running two Government Girls Higher Secondary Schools. The first and second floors of the building were taken on rent by the Government in May, 1957 at a rent of Rs. 1150. 00 per month for running the School. The ground floor of the property comprises 19 shops/godowns, one of which lias been rented to the Government and is in the use of the Government Schools. The annual rental income to the owners from these shops/godowns in the ground floor is stated to be Rs. 1135. 00 per month. The acquisition of the properties of the entire building was suggested by the Directorate of Education on the ground that there was no prospect of the Government constructing Higher Secondary Schools in that area owing to non-availability of a suitable site and there being no possibility of shifting the schools outside the area since the same were meant to serve the minority community (Muslims) which comprises quite a large population in this densely populated locality. It was pointed out that the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration had paid, until April 1968, when the proposal to acquire was made by the Directorate, Rs. l,51,800. 00 as rent to the owners of the buiding for the school. The schools are being run in two shifts; one in the morning and the other in the afternoon. It was also suggested that it will be profitable for the Government to acquire the entire building with the shops and godowns in the ground floor not only because of the rent it was fetcirmg but also the saving that would result to the Government in not having to pay so much by way of rent.

( 2 ) THE notification under section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) was made on 11-12-1968. The Land Acquisition Collector made a report, on 11-3-1969, under section 5-A of the Act that no-objections had been received to the notification under secion 4 (1) of the Act and that in the absence of any objection the acquisition proceedings may be processed further. It was further suggested by the Coilector that notification under section 6 of the A. ct may be made. Such a notification, under section 6 of the Act was issued on 24-4-1969 staling as follows :

"whereas it appears to the Lt. Governor, Delhi that land is required to be taken by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, for Government school, it is hereby declared that the land described in the specification below is acquired for the above purpose". (emphasis added) The present Writ Petition as well as the connected Writ Petitions have been filed attacking notification under section 4 and 6 of the Act on various grounds. The delay in the filing of the petitions has been explained on the ground that the petitioners came to know about the acquisition only after the notice under section 9 of the Act was served in July, 1971. The petitions were filed without any loss of time having regard to the time taken to ascertain the true facts. The award having not been yet passed the petitions cannot be defeated on the ground of delay when, as the present discussion will show, the notification under section 6 is seen to be illegal.

( 3 ) THE objection in C. W. 1162 of 1971 is the most comprehensive and the same was argued by Shri P. N. Lekhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, at great length, his arguments being merely adopted in the other petition. It was contended by Shri Lekhi, infer cilia. , that there had been no inquiry under secti