ORDER :

S. Muralidhar, J.

These seven writ petitions, that were heard separately, arise out of a common set of facts and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Petitioners are seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land admeasuring 15 bighas 4 biswas (15-4) comprised in Khasra No.27//14/2 (2-8), 15/2 (2-8), 16/1 (1-0), Khasra No.28//11 (4-16), 20(4-12) situated in the Revenue Estate of village Bijwasan, New Delhi (hereinafter 'the land in question') has lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the 2013 Act').

3. The common case of all the Petitioners is that they, including their deceased parents and grandfathers, are the recorded owners and bhumidars and in physical possession of the land in question which is described as agricultural land. It is not in dispute that a notification dated 13th December, 2000 was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ('LAA') followed by a declaration dated 7th December, 2001 under Section 6 of the LAA. Section 17 of the Act was invoked and notification dated 15th March, 2002 was issued. The acquisition of the land was for the public purpose of Dwarka Phase-II for the planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector, District South-West, Kapashera, Delhi passed the order No.28/2002-03 dated 24th October, 2002.

4. It is common case of all the Petitioners that compensation in respect of the acquisition has been paid to each of them. However, it is alleged that the Respondents have not taken the physical possession of the property. It is alleged that they have done so by "executing some alleged documents of the possession of the suit property".

5. Elaborating the above submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents-authorities never came to the suit property to take the actual physical possession and did not draw any "panchnama". Their further case is that the signatures of the Petitioners or independent witnesses were not obtained on the panchnama as is mandatorily required in law.

6. It is admitted by the Petitioners that on 4th and 6th June, 2003, the Respondents issued certificates in respect of payment of compensation to the Petitioners and the certificates noted that possession had been handed over to the Respondents. It is nevertheless claimed that "actual physical possession of the suit property has never been taken by the Respondents authorities till date". Mr. Shekhar Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioners, insisted that till date the Petitioners have continued cultivating the land in question. Even photographs taken by the Petitioners on 11th May, 2016 showed standing crops of the Petitioners with the tube well structure.

7. It is contended by the Petitioners that although Section 17 of the LAA was invoked, the Respondents did not "even take physical possession of the suit property much less commencement of the development for the alleged purpose." Mr. Gupta relied upon on the decisions in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh AIR 2016 SC 4275 to urge that as long as possession of the plot remained with the Petitioners, it would not matter if they had received compensation since one of the conditions specified under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act stood fulfilled and this was sufficient for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed. It is stated that on 8th June, 2016, the DDA unloaded bricks near the suit property with mala fide intention of raising a boundary wall.

8. At the hearing of Writ Petition (C) No.5647/2016, by an order dated 10th June, 2016, this Court directed status quo to be maintained by the parties. In response to the notice in the writ pet