JUDGMENT :

R.D. Kothari, J.

Facts of the case are somewhat strange and interesting also. In a case where land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act for the petitioners, the course of events has taken such a turn that petitioners have had to resort to the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 against the respondents wherein the competent authority had passed an eviction order. In Appeal, the District Court quashed and set aside the said order of competent authority. Hence, the present petition before this Court with a prayer to quash the order of the District Court.

2. Few relevant facts and sequence of events are, thus;

Notification under Section 4 was issued on 1.12.1982. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 28.4.1986. Thereafter, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.8.1987. The claimants have preferred SCA No.7394 of 1989 challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State for the benefit of the petitioners. Said petition was dismissed on 25.10.1989, however, Court had passed an order not to dispossess the claimants till 31.12.1989. Then on 29.12.1989, in MCA No.2330 of 1989, time was further extended upto 31.1.1990. However, the petitioners have said to have taken over the possession on 6.1.1990. Much argument was advanced on 'possession', to which a reference may be made little later. Against dismissal of petition, claimants have preferred SLP No.1222 of 1990 which came to be disposed of by the Supreme Court observing that controversy has become academic and SLP has become in-fructuous. It was disposed of by an order dated 11.8.1995. Then, on 22.12.2000 a show cause notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued to the respondents/claimants. The claimants appeared and filed their reply/objections. The competent authority passed an order of eviction on 9.2.2001. Claimants have filed an appeal before the District Court. While so, the claimants have filed another writ petition being SCA No.4655 of 2004 wherein, relief, inter-alia, was claimed that there is delay, laches and acquiescence on the part of other side and therefore, notification of withdrawal under Section 48 may be ordered to be issued. Said petition was disposed of mainly on the ground that the claimants have preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court in the end had allowed the appeal. It is the say of the petitioner that said order of the District Court is bad and illegal.

3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri S.N.Shelat with learned advocate Ms.Lilu K. Bhaya on behalf of the petitioners and learned Senior Advocate Shri R.R.Marshall with Ms.Kapadia for the respondents. Learned advocate Shri Anshin Desai has supported the submission of Shri R.R.Marshall.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri S.N.Shelat has pointed out that it is erroneous to say that order passed by the District Court is by consent. Shri Shelat has also pointed out that on careful reading of the order, it would appear that disposal of the appeal by the District Court is not by consent. Shri Shelat has further pointed out that petitioners have duly taken the possession of the land in question and in the circumstances of the case, present petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order of the District Court. After the completion of submission, brief written submissions is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner.

5. In the written submissions, the petitioners have submitted mainly on following points :

(1) Whether acquisition is abandoned ?

(2) Does the order of the Supreme Court protect the possession of land holder ?

(3) The possession is validly taken.

(4) Whether this Court should deny the relief because construction undertaken by the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings.

(5) Challenge to order dated 9.2.2001.

(6) Whether principle of natural justice are breached ?

(7) Whether the order is consent order.

6. On the other hand, lear