JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-Leave granted.

2. In these appeals, a short but an important question of law arises for our consideration as to the interpretation of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act ) and the procedure to be followed by the appropriate Government while dispensing with the inquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act.

3. These question arose for consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court which on facts came to conclusion that the Lt. Governor of Delhi who was the authority to pass orders under Section 17(4) of the Act did not apply his mind as to the existence of need for the dispensation of 5A inquiry. High Court also held that the Lt. Governor was not informed that there was an earlier attempt to acquire land measuring 40 bighas for the same public purpose and said acquisition had lapsed by afflux of time which also contributed to non-application of mind. Hence, the decision of the Lt. Governor to exclude the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act in the present acquisition proceedings was vitiated.

4. The acquiring authority namely the Union of India and others connected with the said acquisition are in appeal before us in the abov