T.S. Thakur, J.

1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of a notification dated 10.08.07 issued under Sections 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire an area measuring 16468.76 square metres comprising different survey numbers mentioned in the said notification situate in Village Sultanpur of Delhi. A declaration dated 1st November, 2007 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in relation to the said land has also been assailed.

2. The petitioners are owners of different parcels of land situate in different survey numbers of village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi. An area measuring 16468.76 from out of the said survey numbers was requisitioned by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation for construction of its Depot at Ghitorni in connection with what is known as "Qutub Minar-Gurgaon Corridor Delhi MRTS Project Phase-II". Upon consideration of the said requirement of the Corporation, the Lieutenant Governor issued a notification dated 10.08.07 under Section 4(1) readwith Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire the aforementioned extent of land for the public purpose referred to above. This was followed by Declarations dated 01.11.07 under Section 6 of the Act, in respect of the aforementioned extent of the land and the residential buildings constructed over the same. By another notification of even date, the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to take the possession of the aforesaid land and residential properties belonging to the petitioners at the end of 15 days of publication of notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioners have assailed the said notifications in the present writ petitions, as already indicated above.

3. Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior Counsel argued that the impugned notification, to the extent the same invoked the emergency provisions under Section 17(1) and dispensed with the hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act, was illegal. He urged that the proposal for acquisition of the land in question had been sent by the Corporation on 19.3.2007 but a notification based on the said proposal was issued only 5 months later, i.e., on 10.08.07. He further argued that even the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also delayed by nearly 3 months and issued only on 1st November, 2007. This according to Mr. Jaitley, implied that the authorities were taking their own time in proceeding with the proposed acquisition of land and there was in reality no urgency in the same so as to justify dispensing with the hearing of objections of the affected land owners. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Krishan Lal Arneja and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3582 , Mr. Jaitley contended that the respondents could not take resort to emergency provisions only to cover up their own lethargy in the matter.

4. Alternatively, Mr. Jaitley argued that the proposed Depot of the DMRC could be constructed on a slightly different alignment in which event the respondents would not be required to acquire any private land. An alternative plan for construction of the Depot on an altered alignment was presented by Mr. Jaitley in the course of hearing. Relying upon an order passed by this Court in Fountainhead Motels P. Ltd. v. UOI and Ors. WP(C) No. 6275/2007 Decided on 10.10.2007, Mr. Jaitley submitted that the respondents could even in the present case examine the proposed modification and suitably alter the plans to avoid hardship to the petitioners. He urged that the proposed acquisition would landlock the petitioners" property left out of acquisition and thereby deprive them of its gainful use and enjoyment.

5. Mr. Sethi who also appeared for some of the petitioners, apart from adopting the submissions made by Mr. Jaitley, contended that the proposed acquisition of the land belo