Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. These writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the quashing of the notification dated 27.04.2010 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) and the consequent declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 21.03.2011 in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No.835 min, 836 min, 837 min, 838 min, 839 min and 840 min, admeasuring 6800 sq. yds situated in the revenue estate of Village Tihar, Tehsil Rajouri Garden, G- Block, Hari Nagar Extension, Delhi (referred to as the said land). Since the issues arising in these petitions, and the reliefs sought are the same, we have heard common arguments and proceed to dispose them of with this common judgment.

2. W.P.(C.) No.3726/2011 has been preferred by five petitioners, i.e., Sh. Rameshwar Gopal, Sh. Ashish Dewan, Smt. Vandana Srivastava, Ms. Ruby Dewan and Ms. Swati Gopal, who claim to be the legal heirs of late Sh. Bans Gopal, the original recorded owner of the said land, who is stated to have died in 1979. Petitioner no.1 Sh. Rameshwar Gopal is the son of late Sh. Bans Gopal, whereas petitioner nos.2 to 4 and respondent nos.4 and 5 are legal heirs of late Rajeshwar Gopal, deceased son of late Sh. Bans Gopal. Petitioner no.5 is the daughter of late Sh. Shiveshwar Gopal, who is also a deceased son of late Sh. Bans Gopal. Respondent no.1 is the Union of India, respondent no.2 is the GNCT of Delhi and respondent no.3 is the MCD.

3. W.P.(C.) No.3725/2011 has been preferred by various persons claiming to be owner of the shops in the structure constructed on land forming part of Khasra 837 min, 838 min and 839 min having an approximate area of 621.11 sq. mtrs. from out of the said land.

4. We may note the common case made out by the petitioners in these two petitions. The petitioners state that late Sh. Bans Gopal was the exclusive owner of a large tract of land in village Tihar. On a part of his holding, he developed a colony known as Hari Nagar G-Block. The building plans submitted by various plot holders were sanctioned on the basis of the lay out plan of the colony submitted by late Sh. Bans Gopal. The said land, which is the subject matter of the writ petitions is a part of the said colony and was earmarked in the lay out plan by the Delhi Improvement Trust in 1951 for establishing a cinema hall.

5. The petitioners state that out of the said land admeasuring 6800 sq. yds, in about 800 sq. yds of land, 26 shops were constructed, out of which 16 shops are owned by the petitioners in W.P.(C.) No.3726/2011, whereas the remaining were sold to third parties. The petitioners state that plans for raising construction of cinema hall and shops were submitted to the MCD, which assumed jurisdiction upon its formation in 1957. These plans were neither rejected, nor any objection was communicated to the same. Consequently, according to the petitioners, there was deemed sanction of the building plans. Late Sh. Bans Gopal started raising construction. He constructed the basement of the building and 26 shops. The compound wall was also constructed. The shops were let out to tenants - some of which were subsequently sold. The said shops are being subjected to property tax by the MCD. When the construction of the cinema building above the plinth level was being raised, the officers of the MCD and DDA started interfering with the construction and threatened its demolition. Consequently, late Sh. Bans Gopal filed Suit No.255/63/260/80, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, in 1968 he filed Suit No.698/68 against the respondent MCD and the DDA to seek a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his right to complete construction of the cinema building.

6. The said suit as well as the first appeal of late Sh. Bans Gopal were dismissed on the premise that although sanction was deemed to have been granted, the actual construction had not commenced within the period of one year. The p