Judgment :-

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is granted.

2. Delay condoned. Substitution allowed.

3. Leave granted.

4. For planned development of Delhi, Lt. Governor issued notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 05.11.1980 and 25.11.1980 to acquire more than 50,000 bighas of land situated in 13 different villages falling within Delhi.

5. The land owners, feeling aggrieved by the issuance of the said notifications under Section 4 of the Act, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi challenging the same on variety of grounds. The said judgment rendered on 15.11.1983 in the case of Munni Lal & Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. is reported in ILR (1984) I Delhi 469. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners - Munni Lal & Ors., the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitions challenging the validity of the notifications dated 05.11.1980 and 25.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Act, deserve to be dismissed and accordingly were dismissed. We have been given to understand that against this judgment and order, no appeal was filed and this judgment thus attained finality.

6. These appeals arise out of Judgment and Order passed by Delhi High Court in Writ Petitions preferred by appellant and other similarly situated appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein challenge was primarily and basically to the declaration/notifications issued by Delhi Administration under Section 6 of the Act.

7. The said petitions having been dismissed by different Orders passed by Division Benches of Delhi High Court, these appellants are before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.

8. The cases have a long and chequered history. For the sake of convenience, we are taking the facts of the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9389 of 2005, Om Prakash Vs. Union of India and Others as issue involved in these cases is almost identical and common.

9. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are mentioned hereinbelow.

10. Notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued on two different dates, viz., 5.11.1980 and 25.11.1980.

11. Pursuant thereto, further declarations/notifications as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 20.5.1985, 6.6.1985, 7.6.1985 and 26.2.1986.

12. Admittedly, appellant and several such other appellants are in possession as owners of different parcels of land situated in 13 villages, within Delhi.

13. Notifications issued under Section 4 for planned development of Delhi had a caveat that three types of land were exempted from the purview of these notifications i.e. government land, land already notified under Section 4 or 6 of the Act or land in respect of which lay-out plans/building plans were sanctioned by Municipal Corporation of Delhi before 05.11.1980.

14. It is not in dispute that initially appellants had not challenged the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act, by filing writ petitions or resorting to any other remedy in accordance with law.

15. Obviously, there could not have been any order of stay passed by any court in their favour. In other words, there was no order of restraint from issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act.

16. According to the appellants, the Act provides that the said declaration should have been issued within a period of three years from the date of issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Act, that is to say, positively on or before 24.11.1983. But no such declaration having been issued on or before 24.11.1983, i.e., within the statutory period of three years, it is contended that acquisition is illegal and void qua appellants lands. In the aforesaid appeal, last declaration under Section 6 of the Act was finally issued on 07.06.1985, which according to the appellant, was clearly beyond statutory period of three years. Thus, wh