Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the acquisition proceedings in respect of their land located at Village Mahipalpur, New Delhi under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and dispensation of the hearing under Section 5A of the said Act by invocation of the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the said Act.

2. The battle for acquisition of this land has been going on since 1965. A notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on 23.1.1965 for acquisition of a large chunk of land measuring 6241 bighas and 12 biswas in Village Mahipalpur, New Delhi sought for public purpose of planned development of Delhi. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made on 22.12.1966 and another one on 26.12.1968. The land in question was really sought to be acquired for the benefit of the Airports Authority of India (for short AAI) for the airport. The affected parties including the petitioners who were running the business of pottery under the name of Palam Potteries filed proceedings which went up to Supreme Court. The views of the Supreme Court are found in Ravi Khullar and Anr. v. UOI and Ors. and Ors. connected matters : (2007) 5 SCC 231. Civil Appeal No. 1707/2007 filed by Palam Potteries also came to be decided by the said judgement.

3. The Supreme Court held that the expression "public purpose and planned development of Delhi" would include the expansion and development of the Palam Airport which was also a public purpose. This was despite the fact that though the initial development work was to be executed by the development authority subsequently the work was to be carried out by the AAI. It was held that it could not be said that there was a change of public purpose. The acquisition proceedings were upheld qua the various persons who laid the challenge but the petitioners succeeded in their challenge on a limited issue. The Supreme Court found that insofar as the acquisition of the land belonging to Palam Potteries is concerned, the proceedings lapsed for failure of the Collector to make an award within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 11-A of the said Act. Thus, it was on this technical plea that the petitioners succeeded and lived to fight another day.

4. The respondents instead of immediately taking steps for issuing a fresh notification under Section 4 of the said Act [the judgement in Ravi Khullar and Anr. case (supra) having been delivered on 30.3.2007] proceeded to file review petition and curative petition. The review petition filed by AAI was dismissed on 15.5.2007 and the subsequent curative petition, once again, filed by AAI was dismissed on 20.11.2007. The review petition filed by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (for short GNCTD) was, however, dismissed on 15.10.2008 as it was filed belatedly. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition but dismissed the petition.

.5. The AAI after dismissal of the curative petition on 20.11.2007 addressed a communication dated 19.12.2007 to the Land Acquisition Collector stating that the land of the petitioners consisting of 19 bighas and 17 biswas was essentially required by M/s. Delhi International Airport Private Limited (for short M/s. DIAL) on account of operational reasons for expansion/development of IGI Airport as per the Master Plan approved by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It was further mentioned in the communication that the non-availability of this land would affect the airport development plan being initiated by M/s. DIAL which needs to be completed in a time bound schedule before Commonwealth Games 2010. The AAI requested that the land should be acquired on urgent basis. We may notice at this stage that M/s. DIAL is a private party, which is a consortium and there are various agreements entered into with the AAI for development of Airport. Even after this request, the m