RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of land bearing Khasra no. 230, 231-238, 239 and 240 admeasuring 23 bighas and 18 biswas situated at Mathura Road, Village Mauza Bahapur, Delhi has preferred this petition seeking the relief of directing the MCD to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for sanction of layout for construction of a flatted factory on the subject land de hors the stand taken by the DDA and for quashing of the communication dated 23rd March, 2009 and any other communication issued by the DDA to MCD whereunder DDA has claimed title and possession of the subject lands and/or directed the MCD not to accord permission to the petitioner for construction on the said land. The petitioner has also claimed the relief of quashing of the communication dated 23rd March, 2009 or other communication sent by DDA to the Land Acquisition Collector (South) and the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Kalkaji) wherein DDA has requested the said authorities to update their records to show DDA as the owner and in possession of the subject land. The petitioner also seeks the remedy of declaration of, the Handing Over report dated 22nd September, 1986 and Notification dated 6th October, 1986, as illegal.

2. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner that the said land belonged to Delhi Shimla Catholic Archdiocese (DSCA) and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (ACC) were lessee thereof. The petitioner claims to have acquired the land from the said DSCA and ACC. The petitioner further claims that ACC had instituted writ petition no. 2563/1986 in this court for quashing of the award dated 19th September, 1986 purportedly of acquisition of the said land. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 23rd April, 2004 of this Court reported in 2004 V AD (Delhi) 484; it was held that there being no declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the said land, there was no acquisition and the award dated 19th September, 1986 with respect to the land could not have been made. DSCA also preferred WP(C) 667/1987 in this Court in this regard. On the basis of the judgment in the writ petition by ACC, the writ petition filed by DSCA was also allowed on 24th March, 2005. It is pointed out that though in the writ petition filed by ACC, DDA was not a party, it was a party in writ petition filed by DSCA and thus expressly bound by the judgments. It is the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner that notwithstanding the said judgments which have attained finality, DDA continues to represent that the land was acquired and vested in it and owing whereto the MCD was not processing the application of the petitioner for construction on the said land.

3. Notice of the petition was issued on 2nd September, 2009. The matter has been adjourned thereafter from time to time. The respondent DDA has filed a counter affidavit pleading that pursuant to acquisition the land vests in it.

4. The matter was listed before this Court on 30th July, 2010 when the counsel for DDA stated that notwithstanding its stand in the counter affidavit, DDA had been unable to produce the Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis whereof it was pleaded that the land was acquired and vested in it. The counsel for the DDA on that date stated that a last attempt would be made to trace the said Notification within 15 days and if the Notification cannot be found within the said time, the respondent DDA would not be able to substantiate its stand in the counter affidavit of the land having been acquired. The counsel for the petitioner had opposed the said request of DDA on that date. However, last opportunity of 15 days was given on that date to the DDA for placing the Notification under Section 6 of the Act with respect to the land and it was made clear that if the Notification was not produced, the Court will proceed on the premise that the land has