- (1.)Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
(2.)On 27th February, 2001 this Court passed the following order:
"The petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging an acquisition made in the Land Acquisition act, inter alia, on the ground that inordinate delay in completion of the acquisition proceedings lapsed the acquisition itself. The acquisition in question was in relation to a parcel of the land belonging to the petitioners as well as some superstructure built on it. In respect of land, an award was passed by the land acquisition collector on 16th March, 1967, and the said land acquisition collector had stated for the superstructure there will be a separate valuation. But without making the valuation for the superstructure when the authorities wanted to take possession in 1987, the petitioners assailed the acquisition. The High Court has refused to interfere with the acquisition. Against that, the present special leave petition has been filed. It is stated to us that in respect of valuation for the land, an appeal is pending before the delhi High Court, being numbered RFA No. 264/1980. In fitness of things, we think it appropriate that appeal should get transferred to this Court and heard and finally disposed of along with this SLP, so that the court will be in a position to decide whether to annul the acquisition in question or to grant certain compensatory relief. In these circumstances , we direct that RFA No. 264/1980 pending in the Delhi High Court be transferred to this Court. Put up for final disposal alongwith this SLP in the month of April, 2001 on a non-miscellaneous day. "

(3.)When the matter came up for hearing on 6th February, 2002, the Court referred it to a bench of three judges by observing thus:
"One of us doubts the correctness of the decisions rendered by a bench of two judges in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sharan Pal singh, 1996 (11) SCC 683 and mohaji and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Ors.- [jt 1995 (8) SC 599], wherein it is held that where the land acquisition officer leaves the question for determination of compensation for superstructures for a later date then the award for the superstructures would be deemed to be nil as not laying the good law. "