The said numberification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a numberification any encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of such a numberification would be deemed to be void and would number be binding on the government.
A number of companytentions were raised before this Court challenging the legality of the orders passed by the High Court and also challenging the acquisition proceedings of lands of the appellants which were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of planned development of Delhi.
Issue of an order or direction declaring the award and the further proceedings under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act as invalid, illegal and void was prayed for in the said proceedings.
Being aggrieved by the said orders the present special leave petitions were filed.
Appeals filed by them were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court and same were also dismissed on 22.3.2002.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act through a Notification dated 4.1.1969 was also issued stating that the said land is required for the public purpose, namely, for the planned development of Delhi.
The said decision was rendered By the Delhi High Court on 01.12.1995 under the title Roshanara Begum v. Union of India reported in 61 1996 DLT 206.
Mrs. Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant purchased the said acquired land from one Shri Chand which was transferred through Mr. Nand Kishore, power of attorney holder.
Meera Sahni filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1003 of 1983, Smt.
On 24.10.1961, a Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act under the orders of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi intending acquisition of land for the public purpose, namely for the planned development of Delhi.
Seeking similar relief, Writ Petition No.1076 of 2000 was filed by Saphire Sales P Ltd., Writ Petition No.1074 of 2000 was filed by Zircon Trading P Ltd and Writ Petition No.1075/2000 was filed by Eternal Agencies Pvt.
Ltd., enclosing therewith the possession proceedings dated 27.1.2000.
In the year 1980, two of the appellants viz.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the writ petitioners preferred appeals in this Court.
Three writ petitions filed by the afore mentioned companypanies were taken up for companysideration by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and same were dismissed by an order dated 27.2.2002.
Ltd. The said writ petitions were finally heard along with few other letters patent appeals, and all the writ petitions and the letters patent appeals were dismissed.
Some of the cases which were pending in the High Court and pertained to the identical issue were also transferred to this Court.
The Full Bench of the High Court companysidered the said review and writ petitions filed by Mrs.Meera Sahni and Mrs. Padma Mahant and dismissed the same with companyts under Order dated 21.12.2000.
At this point it is worth mentioning that numberapplication for substitution was filed by the said appellants for substitution of their names in writ petition filed by Shri Khyali Ram although the same was pending at the time when such transfer was made and was finally decided in the case of Roshanara Begum Supra in the year 1995.
The said three companypanies purchased the land from the legal representatives of Shri Khyali Ram under the registered sale deed dated 23.06.1992.
Under the aforesaid Notification the land allegedly belonging to the predecessors in interest of the present appellants which companystitute the subject matter of the present appeals was also sought to be acquired.
Subsequently, on 26.4.1983 Notification under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued.
Padma Mahant filed Civil Writ Petition No.1002 of 1983 and whereas Writ Petition No.1086 of 1983 was filed by Shri Khyali Ram, the predecessor in interest of other three appellants, namely, 1 Sapphire Sales P Ltd. 2 Zircon Trading P Ltd. and 3 Eternal Agencies Pvt.
After companysidering in depth all the submissions made, this Court by the judgment and order dated 01.11.1996, under the title Murari and others v. Union of India and others reported in 1997 1 SCC 15 dismissed the said appeals and upheld the acquisition proceedings.
After the abovementioned decision of this Court on 01.11.1996 in Muraris case supra upholding the acquisition proceedings the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of the order passed by this companyrt, on 12.12.1997 award was made and the same was published in respect of the aforementioned acquired land.
The appellants predecessor in interest of the appellants also filed similar writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi challenging the legality and validity of the numberification and declaration under which their land was proposed to be acquired.
All these appeals involving identical issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon Judgment and order.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos.11233 11234 of 2001.
On appreciation of the records placed before us and also the aforesaid companytentions which are raised we number proceed to dispose of these appeals by recording our findings and companyclusions.
The legality of the aforesaid Notifications and declarations, which were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and subsequent Notification under Section 9, were challenged by various land holders whose lands were proposed to be acquired by the aforesaid numberifications.
Being aggrieved by the said award Mrs. Meera Sahni and Padma Mahant filed Review Petition Nos.103/99 and 104/99 respectively before the High Court and thereafter filed second substantive Writ Petition being No.5918/1999 on the ground that the lands in dispute were purchased only after obtaining due permission under Section 5 of the Delhi Lands Act and that the sale deeds were executed in their favour were duly registered with the sub registrar on 05.06.1980 with the endorsement that No Objection Certificate for short NOC has been obtained.
