T. S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions have been referred to a third Judge to resolve the conflict arising out of the opinions expressed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Swatanter Kumar and Madan B. Lokur, JJ. The writ petitions assailed the validity of certain land acquisition proceedings in which while Swatanter Kumar, J held the inquiry under section 5-A and the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") to be legally valid, Madan B. Lokur, J. has held the same to be otherwise. The end result was been that while the acquisition proceedings have been upheld by swatanter Kumar, J. the same have been quashed by M. B. Lokur, J.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions have been set out in detail in the opinions recorded by the Hon'ble Judges, comprising the Bench. The same need not, therefore, be stated over again except to the extent it is necessary to do so for appreciating the precise issue that arises for consideration and the context in which the same arises.

( 3 ) A large extent of land situate in 13 South Delhi villages was notified for acquisition by the respondents for what was described as "planned development of Delhi". Objections to the acquisitions were invited by the respondents and were filed by the land owners but not all of them. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was, in due course, issued by the competent authority, the legality whereof was challenged in a large number of writ petitions filed in this Court. Some of these petitions raised the contention that the declaration was beyond the period of three years stipulated by the act. That plea was examined and repelled by a full Bench of this Court in Balak ram Gupta Vs. Union of India. , AIR 1987 Delhi 239 (FB ). Since there are three different decisions rendered by this Court from time to time with the same cause title, the full Bench decision, which is the first in point of time shall be referred to as "balak Ram-I" to avoid confusion.

( 4 ) THE plea of limitation urged by the petitioners having failed, the matters came up before a Division Bench of this Court to examine the other contentions urged by the petitioners against the validity of the impugned declaration. The Division Bench examined the validity of the declaration and the inquiry under section 5-A and found that the same were legally unsustainable. By a short order dated 14th August, 1988 the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the inquiry under section 5-A as also the declaration under section 6 awarding Rs. 15,000/- as costs in each group of petitions. The short operative order is reported in Balak Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India, 38 (1999) DLT 243 (DB)and shall be referred to as "balak Ram-II". The detailed reasons in support of the conclusion of the Division Bench were rendered separately and are recorded in Balak Ram Vs. Union of India, 37 (1989) DLT 150 (hereinafter referred to as "balak Ram-III" ).

( 5 ) I shall presently refer to the reasons recorded in Balak Ram-III. But before I do so, I need mention that the decision in Balak Ram-III appears to have been understood to mean as though the acquisition proceedings in respect of all the villages covered by the impugned notification stood quashed. This is evident from the fact that in some of the subsequent petitions filed before this Court directions on that assumption were issued from time to time. So much so a direction issued by this Court in Balbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors. , 39 (1989) DLT 233 on the above assumption was questioned before the supreme Court by the Delhi Development Authority and was upheld in Delhi development Authority Vs. Sudan Singh and Ors. , (1997) 5 SCC 430 further strengthening the impression that the decision in Balak Ram-III had the effect of quashing the acquisition proceedings in toto regardless of whether or not the land owners were parties to the petition in the batch of cases decided by Balak ram-II and III.

( 6