JUDGMENT

G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral)--With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of notification No. 10(29)/96/L&B/LA 11394 dated 27.10.1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and notification No.F-10(29)/96/L&B/LA/19599 issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.03.2013. The subject matter of this writ petition is lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 36/4(0-11), 25/24/2(0-3), 36/3(0-10); 36/4(1-3), 25/24/2(0-4); 24/22(1-3), 24/21/2(1-2); 26/18 min.(0-10), 26/23 min. (0-10); 26/18 (0-10), 26/23 (0-10); 26/21/1/1(0-10), 35/1/1(0-7), 36/5 min. (0-3); 24/21/1/(1-03); 37/1/1(1-07); 24/21/1(1-03); 35/1/1(0-18), 36/5(0-2); 35/2/2(1-02); 37/2(1-02); 23/23 (1200 sq. yds.); 36/4(1-03), 25/24/2(0-4); 35/1/2/2(750 sq. yds.); 37/3/1(1050 Sq. yds.); 37/1/1(1-07); 35/1/2/2(1-08); 35/1/2/2(1-07) situated in village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi.

3. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that a Section 4 notification of the Act was issued on 27.10.1999 followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 03.04.2000. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notifications, the land owners had filed writ petitions in Delhi High Court being W. P. (C) 3410/2000 and W. P. (C) 4375/2000.

4. It is also pointed out that vide order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the Delhi High Court, the case of the land owners was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the Delhi High Court various similarly situated land owners approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide CA No. 3513/2007 and various other connected matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued notice and granted interim stay of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi on 19.04.2000. By an order dated 21.03.2012, the Supreme Court was pleased to quash the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and the declaration dated 03.04.2000 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

5. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the LAC issued a general public notice thereby inviting objections under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioners approached the LAC and filed objections in their individual capacity.

6. A fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 20.03.2013 after a lapse of the statutory period of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor the compensation has been paid. She further submits that since the fresh Section 6 notification was made after a lapse of more than one year, the case of the petitioners would be covered by the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W. P. (C) 3049/2013 titled as Sunil Goel & Others Vs. The State and Others reported in (2014) 211 DLT 382 decided on 29.04.2014 when batch of cases were decided. Reliance is placed on para 18 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under :

18. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners ought to be accepted. This is so because the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao (supra) covers the present case on all fours. The very issue before the Supreme Court, as pointed out by us earlier, was - whether, after the quashing of a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, a fresh period of one year would be available to the State Government to issue another declaration under Section 6. This question has been answered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (supra) in the negative. In other words, when a Section 6 declaration is quashed, it does not give a fresh period of one year to the Government to issue another Section 6 declaration. The Section 6 declaration, after such quashing, if at all, can be issued only during the