1. The petitioners are recorded owners and bhumidars in possession of land comprised in different khasra numbers situated in Village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi.

2. The petitioners purchased a land through separate sale deeds and necessary mutations were effected in the land revenue records.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that farm houses have been built on the land after due sanction and even completion certificates have been issued in a number of cases, However, it is the stand of the petitioners in three of these cases that the farm houses were constructed as early as in 1967 when no such sanction was required.

4. A notification dated 04.01.2004 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the said Act” for short) for acquisition of land for public purpose namely Dwarka Phase-II under planned development of Delhi. The land of the petitioners was notified under the said notification. The land owners filed objections under Section 5A of the said Act. The primary grounds taken were:

a) That there were sanctioned farm houses and the land was being used as per the Master Plan.

b) The public purpose was stated to be imaginary and nonexistent.

c) The farm owners also claimed that the land had been denotified under Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957.

d) A professed policy of the respondents not to acquire built up construction and sanctioned farm houses was pleaded on the basis of a decision taken by the LG on 30.05.1996 in respect of the some other cases that unless a major policy decision was taken, the sanctioned farm houses and their land should not be acquired.

e) In terms of the National Housing Policy declared by the Central Government, there was need for privatization of housing activity in Delhi and

f) The green area is required to be maintained in the vicinity of the airport.

5. On the objections being considered and in pursuance to the decision of the LG a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the said Act at which stage these farm owners approached this court seeking quashing of the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to canvass the following propositions:

i) Lack of proper consideration of objections and effective hearing under Section 5A of the said Act.

ii) Lack of application of mind prior to the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the said Act.

iii) The stated requirement not being in conformity with the MPD-2021.

iv) Discrimination qua the petitioners as land in respect of other farm houses, though not forming subject matter of the same notification, was not even notified under Section 4 of the said Act on account of policy of the Government not to acquire built up farm houses.

7. The petitioners submitted that right to property continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India though it may not be a fundamental right. It is a valuable right akin to a fundamental right and thus the consideration of the objections filed by the owners of the land as also the acceptance of recommendations must be proceeded by a proper application of mind on the part of the Government. The said Act being exproprietary legislation, the provisions of the said Act ought to be strictly construed as they seek to deprive a person of his land without his consent. It was canvassed before us on the basis of the records produced by the respondents and also on the basis of the report of the LAC that a note sheet was prepared which also did not reflect the factual position and the LG only appended his signatures. It was thus pleaded to be a case of lack of formation of any proper opinion by the LG and non application of mind. Mere signatures were stated to be not sufficient to show application of mind.

8. It was submitted that the respondents at no stage examined the aspect of a proper sanction being available in the case of farm houses of the present cases