The pursuit of regularisation of an unauthorized colony is contradictory to seeking relief under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Granting relief in the form of declaring the land acquisition proceedings illegal would disrupt the regularisation process of the unauthorized colony.

S. Muralidhar, J.

The prayers in the petition as amended pursuant to the permission granted by this Court by an order dated 21st February, 2015 read as under:

"a. writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby quashing the notification no. F.10(29)/96/L&B/LA/19599 u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated 20/03/2013 and in consequence thereof quashing notification no. 10 (29)/96/L & B/ LA 11394, dated 27/10/1999 under section 4 of the said act.

(bb) writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing the Respondents to denotify the lands of the Petitioners i.e., khasra no.s 16/17 (4-16), 16/18 (4-16),15/16 (4- 12), 15/7 (3-00); 35/1 (1-5); 38/8/2 (0-04), 38/13 (3-6); 22/23 (2-00), 39/3(3-08), 39/8/1 (0-19), 39/8/2(2-12), 39/9/2(1-19), 39/9/3(0-19), 39/12/1 (0-12), 12/2 (2-16); 26/21/2/2(2- 18), 22/2(4-04), 35/1/2/1(0-01), 35/2/1(0-12), 35/1/2/2 (0-08), 35/1/2/2 (2-15); 26/18 (2-04), 26/23(4-11); 24/16(4-14), 14/2 (1- 14), 37/5(0-12), 25/19/2(4-16), 25/20(4-10), 25/21 (4-09), 25/22/1/2(4- 12), 24/17(3-18), 24/24(4-09), 24/25 (4-16), 37/1/2(2-19), 37/2(4-16), 37 /5( 4-16), 25/26(0-04), 25/24/1 (4-00), 25/24/2(0-11), 25/25/1 (3- 11), 25/25/2(1-06), 37/3/1(1-08), 37/3/2(2-17), 37/4(4-16), 37/6/2 (2- 06) in Vill. Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi;

c. Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioners from their lands;

d. Award appropriate costs in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. There are six Petitioners before the Court. Barring Petitioner No.2 whose address is given as Aurangabad in Maharashtra and Petitioner No.3 who is a resident of Printer Apartment, Sector-13, Rohini, the other Petitioners i.e. Petitioner Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 are stated to be residents of Village and Post Office, Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi-42.

3. It s stated in the petition that the Petitioners are "the owners and in possession" of the aforementioned land of the Khasra Numbers indicated which form part of "Shahabad Extension, Shahbad Part-II Colony, Delhi."

In para 13, it is stated that the lands of the Petitioners "form part of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, which is a part of the development area no. 175/RZ, which the Respondents have not only decided to regularize but also decided to denotify." It is stated in para 14 that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("LAA") in respect of acquisition of the aforementioned land was issued on 27th October, 1999 for the public purpose of the Rohini Residential Scheme. This was followed by declaration under Section 6 read with Section 7 and 17 of the LAA on 3rd April, 2000.

4. It is stated that the predecessors-in-interest of the Petitioners No.1, 3, 4 & 5 filed WP (C) 2570/2000 (Mohinder Pal Singh v. Union of India) while predecessor-in-interest of Petitioner No.2 filed WP(C) No. 2327/2000 (Surendra Kumar Garg v. Union of India) and predecessor-in-interest of Petitioner No.6 filed WP(C) No. 2835/2000 (Rakhi Rughwani v. Union of India). Interim orders were initially granted in these petitions on various dates in May 2000. However, ultimately all these writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 9th July, 2007.

5. The said Writ Petitioners then filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court which were converted into civil appeals in which the Supreme Court was pleased to direct interim stay of the order of the High Court.

6. In para 18 of the petition, it is stated that thereafter the Respondents decided to regularise the colony of the Petitioners. The RWA of the colony of the Petitioners applied for regularisation and submitted a survey plan. It is stated that the survey plan was prepared by a registered architect and filed in the concerned department.

7. In para 19 of the petition it is stated as under:

"19. That the colony of the Petitioners has already been issued a Provisional Certificate of regularization dated 17/09/2008 by the Lt. Go