BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. These petitions are being taken up together as they involve identical issues. WP(C) 3049/2013 (Sunil Goel and Others v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others) was, by an earlier order, directed to be taken as the lead matter and the pleadings were to be completed in that matter alone. We shall, therefore, refer to the facts in Sunil Goel (supra).

2. On 27.10.1999, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the said Act?), was issued indicating that the land stated therein was likely to be acquired by the Government of Delhi for a public purpose, namely, Rohini Residential Scheme. The said notification also mentions that the Lt. Governor of Delhi was satisfied that the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act were applicable to the land mentioned in the said notification and that he was pleased, under Section 17(4) of the said Act, to direct that all the provisions of Section 5A of the said Act would not apply.

3. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, which was issued on 03.04.2000 stating that the land mentioned therein was acquired for the public purpose, namely, the Rohini Residential Scheme. The land specified under the said Section 4 and Section 6 notifications, include lands at village Shahbad Daulatpur, Pehladpur Bangar and village Pansali. A number of writ petitions were filed before this court challenging the above notifications. The petitioners in this batch of matters are all those persons, who had challenged the said initial notifications. On 19.04.2000, this court, while issuing notice in the petition in the case of Sunil Goel [being WP(C) 1638/2000] also directed that status quo as regards possession be maintained in the meanwhile. The said stay order operated till 09.07.2007, when the decision of a Division Bench of this court came in the said batch of writ petitions. The Division Bench dismissed all the writ petitions and the interim orders were recalled.

4. Thereafter, an application had been filed by Sunil Goel and Others seeking a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. That application was disposed of by an order dated 01.08.2007, whereby this court granted the certificate to file an appeal under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. The operative portion of the said order was as under:-

“In our view, the following substantial questions of general importance of law arise in respect of which we grant Certificate to file an Appear under Article 134 A of the constitution of India:

(1) Once Section 17 of the LA Act is invoked, does it have the effect of the suspension of the right to file objections under section 5A? (2) Is it essential that separate Orders under Section 17(4) must be passed if it is intended that there should be a suspension of the right to file Objections under Section 5A ? Application stands disposed of.”

5. Thereafter, Sunil Goel filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.3513/2007. Other similar appeals were also filed and they were heard by the Supreme Court. By an order dated 09.08.2007, the Supreme Court granted interim stay of the order of the High Court, whereby the writ petitions had been dismissed.

6. In one of the batch matters before the Supreme Court, namely, Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust v. Union of India & Others (Civil Appeal No.3813/2007), the Supreme Court delivered the judgment on 21.03.2012 by allowing the appeal. The operative portion of the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust (supra) was as under:-

“22. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The Notification dated October 27, 1999 to the effect the Lt. Governor, Delhi is satisfied also that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act are applicable to this land and is further pleased under sub-section (4) of the said Section to direct that all the provisions of Section 5(A) shall not apply insofar as