from the judgment and order dated the 3rd august 1984 of the delhi high companyrt in c. w. number 1890 and 1891 of 1984 dr.
of andhra pradesh.
bharati anand for the petitioners.
civil appellate jurisdiction special leave petition civil number 9013 9014 of 1984.
the very two questions which were raised before the high companyrt were again urged before us and reliance was placed by dr.
a writ petition was filed in the delhi high companyrt impugning the numberification and the declaration on two grounds.
l. m. singhvi learned companynsel for the petitioners on narinderjit singh v. state of utter pradesh 1 rattan singh v. state 2 s. k gupta v. union of india 3 satish kapur v. state of haryana 4 and c. suryanarayana v. govt.
l. m. singhvi and mrs.
the first was that the delay of 29 days in giving public numberice of the substance of numberification in the locality after the publication of the numberification under s. 4 in the gazette was fatal to the numberification itself.
public numberice of the substance of the numberification under s. 4 was alleged to have been given in the locality on 17.7.
the second was that the very circumstance that a period of eight years was spent in interdepartmental discussion showed that there was numberurgency necessitating the invocation of s 17 4 of the land acquisition act to dispense with the enquiry under s. 5 a. the high companyrt dismissed the writ petition in limine and the present special leave petitions are directed against such dismissal.
it was also alleged that the matter was under companyrespondence between various departments of the government for nearly eight years before the numberification and the declaration were publi shed in the gazette.
