( 1 ) AMONGST many buildings of historical and archeological interest adorning the sky line of Delhi is one known as Qutab Minar. Succumbing only partially to the vagaries of time, it stands proudly in a once sleepy hamlet of Delhi called Mehrauli. It now overseas colossal developmental activity around it. A little ahead of the complex now developed as a tourist spot around this Minar but under its lengthening shadows lies a piece of land bearing Khasra Nos. 1905/1811/1492 (less then one biswa), 1906/1811/1493 (10-11) and 1909/1812/1497 (7-19) total measuring 18 bighas 10 biswas. This piece of land is at the centre-storm of this legal battle. The cause is provided by the proceedings to acquire it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act ). Following is a brief resume of the facts.

( 2 ) SOMETIME in the year 1916 the father of the petitioners purchased the land in question and later constructed thereon a Dharamshala. a: Piao, three residential buildings and two water tanks. Part of the land was developed into a garden. He died in the year 1942 consequent upon which the land was mutated in the name of the petitioner. On November 13, 1959 the said land was notified for acquisition for a public purpose namely Planned Development of Delhi through notification under section 4 of the Act. It was followed on December 7, 19 66 by a notification issued under section 6. On March 25, 1983 was announced the Award. The present writ petition was filed in October 1982.

( 3 ) THE challenge is on the following grounds:

(A) The notification under section 4 of the Act was not published in the locality rendering it void. (b) The notification under section 6 of the Act did not specify and describe the land which was proposed to be acquired or the structures standing thereon and as such it suffered from vagueness. (c) The notification under section 4 issued on November 13, 1959 having been followed by notification under. Section 6 on December 7, 1966 and the Award on March 25, 1983, there was inordinate delay rendering the entire proceedings bad in law. (d) The Land Acquisition Collector was bound under law to give only one Award with regard to the land in question. By awarding compensation with regard to land only and reserving right to give another award with regard to superstructures etc. ,. the Land Acquisition Collector acted illegally. . . .

( 4 ) IT is time now to come into grip with the contentions raised and to examine them in required depth.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the notification under section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette. The objection, is that its substance was not published in the locality. The respondents, however, claim its publication in the locality and in support reliance is placed on the counter-affidavit claiming such publication. The problem, however, is that the matter does not rest here. I had called upon the respondents to produce official record showing publication in the locality and this saw the respondents asking for adjournment after adjournment to trace and produce the record. It proved to be an exasperating exercise in futility as ultimately the respondents came up with the plea that the original record was not traceable and that probably it was to be found in the Roznamchas which stood destroyed. As per the petitioner the respondents were merely skirting the issue and their so-called frantic search was a mere pretence to lend some respectability to their false plea of publication.

( 6 ) WAS it really a blind man s search in a dark room for a black cat which was never there?

( 7 ) I will come back to it a little later. Let me first read section 4 (1) of the Act. It says:

"4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon:- (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be pu