MITTER, J. - (1.) ON behalf of Wanchoo, C.J., Bachawat, J., and himself): This is a group of five Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging in four cases the validity of land acquisition proceedings started by a notification dated 13th November, 1959 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and declarations contained in other notifications dated 18th March, 1966 onwards under section 6 of the said Act and for other incidental reliefs including the issue of appropriate writs for the purpose. Various persons have joined as petitioners in three of the applications. In Writ Petition No. 114 of 1966 the petitioners number 61. They all-own lands in village Mandawali Fazilpur, on Patpur Gunj Road within the Union territory of Delhi, the notification of the declaration under section 6 having been made on 18th March, 1966. In Writ Petition No. 216 of 1966 there are 71 petitioners who also own lands in the same village. Their complaint is based on the same notification under section 4 and a notification dated 12 th July, 1966 under section 6 of the Act. In Writ Petition No. 223 of 1966 the single petitioner is Pandit Lila Ram who owned lands in villages Masjid Moth, Raipur Khurd and Shahpur Jat respectively within the Union territory of Delhi. His complaint is based on a section 4 notification dated 3rd September, 1957, a notification dated 15th April, 1961 under section 6 of the Act and several awards of Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi made in 1961. In Writ Petition No. 252 of 1966, there are eight petitioners who owned lands in village Kotla at Patparganj Road within the Union territory of Delhi. Their grievance is against section 4 notification dated 13th November, 1959 and a notification dated 14th June, 1961 under section 6 of the Act. In Writ Petition No. 85 of 1967 the sole petitioner is one Rai Bahadur Sohan Lal who owned land in village Kilokri on the Delhi-Mathura Road within the Union territory of Delhi. His grievance is against section 4 notification dated 13th November, 1959 a notification dated 27-th July, 1961 under section 6 of the Act and an award dated 16th February, 1962.
(2.) ALTHOUGH there are some distinctive features in some of the petitions to be mentioned later, the common attack is based on the judgment of this Court delivered on 9th February, 1966 in State of Madhya Pradesh v. V. P. Sharma. That case arose out of proceedings for acquisition of land in eleven villages in Madhya Pradesh for the steel plant at Rourkela. There a notification had been issued under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 16th May, 1949 declaring that lands in eleven named villages were likely to be needed for a public purpose i.e., the erection of an iron and steel plant. Thereafter, notifications were issued under section 6 from time to time and some lands in village Chhawani were acquired in the year 1956. In August, 1960 a fresh notification under section 6 of the Act was issued proposing to acquire Ac. 486-17 of land in the said village. Some owners of the land in the village who were affected by the notification filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the notification under section 6. The High Court accepted their contention whereupon the State of Madhya Pradesh came up to this Court in appeal. It was held by this Court that sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. were integrally connected and that acquisition always began with a notification under section 4 (1) followed by consideration of all objections thereto under section 5-A and a declaration under section 6. According to this Court, once a declaration under section 6 was made the notification under section 4 (1) was exhausted and the latter section was not a reservoir from which the Government might from time to time draw out land and make declaration with respect to it successively. The ultimate conclusion was that there could be no successive notifications under section 6 with respect to land in a locality specified in one notification under section 4 (1) and in the result, the appeal of the State was dismissed. The present Writ Petitions were all filed after the said judgment of this Court. The omnibus notification under section 4 in four of these cases dated 13th November, 1959 covered an area of Ac. 34,070-00 marked as blocks Nos. A to T and X in a map enclosed with the notification excepting therefrom certain classes of lands, namely, (a) Government land and evacuee land, (b) land already notified either under section 4 or under section 6 of the Act for any Government scheme, (c) land already notified either under section 4 or under section 6 for house building co-operative societies mentioned in annexure (iii) to the notification and the land under graveyards, tombs, shrines and those attached to religious institutions and wakf property. The notification stated that land was required by the Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, the planned development of Delhi. As already noted, there were several notifications under section 6 made from time to time, the earliest one in this series of petitions being dated 14th June, 1961. It is clear that on the basis of the judgment of this Court the validity of the notifications under section 6 of the Act after the first of the series could not be upheld in a Court of law.
(3.) ON 20th January, 1967 an Ordinance was promulgated by the President of India styled The Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance (I of 1967). The scheme of the Ordinance was that the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was to have effect, subject to the amendment specified in sections 3 and section 4 of the Ordinance. section 3 purported to amend section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) by enabling different reports to-be made in respect of different parcels of land under section 5-A of the Act. Similarly, section 4 of the Ordinance purported to amend section 6 of the principal Act by enabling different declarations to be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification under section 4. section 5 of the Ordinance purported to validate all acquisitions of land made or purporting to have been made under the principal Act before the commencement of the Ordinance, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court to the contrary.;