1. This writ petition has been filed against the declaration of the Delhi Administration dated 20th September, 1968 published in the Gazette on 28th November, 1968 (Annexure A-III) (hereinafter called as the declaration in dispute) under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (hereinafter called as the Act). The land in dispute is situated in the revenue state of Chandrawal alias Shahdara. The petition has been filed on the ground that after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 1st November, 1966 published in the Gazette on 10th November, 1966 (Annexure A-1). The said declaration related to the land in dispute. Eventually another declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 20th September, 1968 published in the Gazette on 28th November, 1968 (Annexure A-II) (which bears precisely the same date as of Annexure III) and by this declaration the land in dispute of the petitioner was deleted from the previous declaration, and some other corrections were made. On the same day another declaration under Section 6 (Annexure III) was issued which covered the lands in dispute belonging to the petitioner besides two other fields which are not in dispute before me.
2. In the writ petition two grounds of attack had been laid, one was that the declaration had been made by the Lt. Governor while it ought to have been made by the appropriate Government and secondly, after the deletion of the lands in dispute by Annexure A-II, the notification under Section 4 had been exhausted and the Government did not have any power to re-issue a declaration without a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act.
3. Mr. Dalal has appeared to support the writ petition. So far as the first point is concerned, the matter stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Management of M/s. Patiala Iron Works v. Union of India, 2nd (1975) 1 Del 613 = 1975 Lab Ic 1265. It has been held by the said authority that the appropriate Government in the Union Territory of Delhi is the Lt. Governor. This was a case under the Industrial Disputes Act, but the same reasoning will apply to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and Mr. Dalal has very fairly conceded that in view of the said authority, he is unable to press this objection.
4. The second contention Mr. Dalal has urged with force. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents has explained that the declaration Annexure A-I dated 1st November, 1966 had been issued on the basis of a notification dated 24th October, 1961 under Section 4 of the Act but it had been later discovered that the land in dispute was not covered by the said notification but it was covered by the general notification which had been issued on 13th November, 1959. It was, thereforee, necessary to rectify the mistake. Consequently the declaration Annexure A-II was issued deleting the land in dispute from the declaration Annexure A-I but simultaneously a correct declaration was issued on the same date Annexure A-III and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity.