Acting C.J.

1. A large extent of land measuring nearly 16000 bighas situated in different parts of Delhi were notified for acquisition for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi in terms of a preliminary notification dated 24th November, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 6th December, 1966 in respect of land situated in Village Haider Pur. Award No. 13/75-76 and 50/80-81 were made in due course determining the compensation payable to the land owners. From out of the land acquired in village Haider Pur, the respondent/DDA has developed what is known as Pritampura housing colony. The DDA appears to have allotted an area measuring 16.695 acres in terms of an allotment letter dated 11th February, 1983 to the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi for running three different secondary schools one of which happens to be a school meant only for girls. Possession of the said area was also delivered to the Director. It is not in dispute that the Director of Education has utilized the land in question for construction of the institutions which are currently running from there.

2. The petitioners case in the present writ petition is that while taking possession of 16.695 acres of land, the respondents tried to encroach upon an area measuring 4 bighas and 14 bids was situated in survey No. 834/2 of Village Haider Pur which according to the petitioners had not been acquired in terms of the notifications mentioned earlier nor any payment towards compensation was made for the same or any award made or published by the Collector. The petitioners further case is that the school authorities constructed a boundary wall around the aforementioned extent of land in violation of their rights which forced them to file Suit No. 838/1988, which was disposed of finally by the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi on 6th September, 2002. The operative portion of the judgment delivered by the said Court is to the following effect:

Thus, suit of the plaintiff regarding the relief of forcibly dispossession and enjoyment of the suit land is concerned is decreed whereas the plaintiffs prayer regarding the direction to the defendant to remove the tin shed from the suit land is dismissed and further prayer of the plaintiff that defendants be directed not to close the passage at pt. D as shown in the site plan to approach the plaintiff to the suit land has further been decreed. Suit of the plaintiff is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.

3. Aggrieved by the decree aforementioned, the Directorate of Education filed an appeal to the Court of Additional District Judge who dismissed the same by order dated 25th April, 2007 holding that the appeal was barred by limitation. Execution proceedings were then instituted by the petitioner-decree holder in which the Court directed that the judgment debtor could carry out the demolition of the wall constructed by them around the suit property on their own failing which the decree-holder would be entitled to do so with police help. In the meantime, the Government appears to have been approached by the Directorate of Education and the DDA for initiation of fresh proceedings for acquisition of the suit property. Consequently, a notification dated 4th April, 2007 was issued by the Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire the land in question for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi. By another notification dated 12th June, 2007, the Government also invoked the urgency provisions contained in Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act authorizing the Collector, Land Acquisition to take possession of the land in question even in anticipation of the making of an award. It is noteworthy that the Government did not dispense with the holding of an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act for th