( 51 ) IT is clear from the averments in the counter-affidavit extracted above that the Government also decided to regularise the built-up areas in the colony of the petitioners in accordance with the regularisation plan. Yet, the Delhi Development Authority issued notices and orders (two of which are Annexures O and P) for demolition of the buildings of most of the petitioners on the ground that the constructions were made without obtaining permission of the Competent Authority as required by Section 12 (3) (i) and 12 (1) of Delhi Development Act. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit that the constructions directed to be demolished were not in accordance with the regularisation plan while according to the petitioners they were in conformity with the Master Plan. The notices and orders also do not mention whether the said constructions were not in accordance with the regularisation plan. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority explaning the position. In the absence of any explanation, the notices and orders for demolition have to be held to be inconsistent with and contrary to the declared assurance that the built-up areas in the colony of the petitioners will be regularised in accordance with the regularisation plan, and liable to be quashed. ( 52 ) THE third contention of Shri Rathee was that the respondents made policy statements and gave assurances that built-up areas would not be acquired or otherwise disturbed, and they were, therefore, estopped in equity from acting to the contrary. It was alleged in paragraph 27 and ground (e) of the wnt petition that on the basis of the policy statements made by the Government and the Delhi Administration from time to time and in view of the tacts that most of the petitioners denosited earnest money towards development charges and the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking of the Delhi Municipal Corporation sanctioned supply of electricity to the petitioners, there should be no question of acquisition or demolition of the properties of the petitioners in areas where civic amenities have been provided by the public authorities. It was added in ground (e) that in the aforesaid circumstances it is not open to the respondents to go back on their plighted word to the petitioners, and that they cannot be permitted on one hand to charge money for development of the area of the petitioners and, on the other hand, to take action for demolition of their properties or to take possession of the same under the garb of acquisition. ( 53 ) SO far as the policy statements and assurances are concerned, Shri Rathee REFERRED TO to the Annexures D, E, F and H-2. The said annexures were of dates between November, 1966, and June, 1970, while the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the properties of the petitioners were issued in November, 1959, October, 1960, and March, 1966, i. e. prior to the dates of the aforesaid annexures. Further, none of the annexures contains any statement, assurance or representation to the petitioners that the built-up areas in their colony would be withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings which had already been commenced, or that they would not be acquired. So fat as the allegation of deposit of earnest money towards development charges is concerned, no particulars have been mentioned and no documents have been filed to substantiate the same. As regards the allegation that electricity and other civic amenities have been supplied, I find it difficult to see how the same would support a plea of estoppel. Thus, no question of estoppel or even equitable estoppel arises so far as acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act is concerned. As regards demolition, the notices and orders of demolition issued by the Delhi Development Authority have already been held above to be liable to be quashed. The taking of possession of the properties (i. e. lands and buildings thereon) of the petitioners on acquisition by the respondents is subject to the policy set out in the counter-affidavit. As regards demolition, the notices and orders of demolition issued by the Delhi Development Authority have already been held above to be liable to be quashed. The taking of possession of the properties (i. e. lands and buildings thereon) of the petitioners on acquisition by the respondents is subject to the policy set out in the counter-affidavit. ( 54 ) THE fourth and the last contention of Shri Rathee was that a large number of areas which were in similar situation as the colony of the petitioners have been regularised while the colony of the petitioners has not been regularised, that the colony of the petitioners was among those colonies which were recommended for regularisation by various competent authorities, but the Delhi Development Authority has chosen the colony of the petitioners for demolition while other colonies which stand on the same footing and in respect of which similar recommendations for regularisation have been made as for the colony of the petitioners, were not threatened by any such action, and that the peti- tioners were thus discriminated against in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. This contention was set out in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the writ petition. But, no particulars about the other colonies were given in the petition. The allegations of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution were denied by Shri Kashyap in paragraphs 23 and 24 of his counter-affidavit. In the absence of details and particulars, the plea of discrimination remains unsubstantiated. ( 55 ) IT has to be noted that it was only the Delhi Development Authority (respondent No. 4) that issued notices and orders of demolition of the buildings of the petitioners, and not the respondents I to 3 and 5. The said notices and orders have been held to be liable to be quashed. So far as respondents 1 to 3 and 5 are concerned, the contentions of the petitioners against the acquisition and the awards made by the Collector (respondent No. 3) under the Land Acquisition Act have been negatived. It has also been pointed out that the taking of possession of the properties of the petitioners in question by the respondents on acquisition is subject to the policy set out in the counter-affidavit. It has also been pointed out that the taking of possession of the properties of the petitioners in question by the respondents on acquisition is subject to the policy set out in the counter-affidavit. If and when any of the respondents takes any action either to dispossess the petitioners or to demolish their properties in question, it is, of course, open to the petitioners to put forward such defence as may be available to them in law and under this judgment. ( 56 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed partly, and the notices and orders (two of which are Annexures 0' and T') issued by the Delhi Development Authority under Sections 30 and 31 of the Delhi Development Act for demolition of the buildings of the petitioners in Shakarpur Extension Colony are quashed. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this writ petition. T. V. R. Tatachari, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed by Shri Lal Singh and 295 others under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying (1) for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, and (2) for the issuance of a directioln to the respondents not to take possession of the lands and buildings of the petitioners, and also not to demolish or in any way interfere with the buildings of the petitioners situated in the Shakarpur Extension Colony in the Revenue Estates of Shakarpur Khas and Mandaoli Fazalpur. Delhi-Shahdara. Delhi. The respondents to the writ petition are - (1) The Lt. Governor, Delhi,. (2) The Delhi Administrstion The Land Acquisition Collector, (4) Delhi Develonment Authority and (5) Municipal Corporation of Delhi. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are residents of Shakarpur Extension Colony. Delhi. Shahdara, Delhi. According to the petitioners, the said Colony was formed by the merger of small blocks of houses and plots which were in existence prior to 1959. It was statein the writ petition that the Colony has an area of about 60 acres comprised of about 2,500 plots, that about 1. 800 houses were already built over it, and that nearly 2. 000 families have been residing there since prior to 1959. The petitioners built the residential houses over a large number of plots owned by them. It was statein the writ petition that the Colony has an area of about 60 acres comprised of about 2,500 plots, that about 1. 800 houses were already built over it, and that nearly 2. 000 families have been residing there since prior to 1959. The petitioners built the residential houses over a large number of plots owned by them. It was further stated in the writ petition that the aforesaid Colony has been earmarked as a residential area in the Master Plan for Delhi, and that in the Draft Zonal Development Plan I also. except for a small nortion. , it has been shown as residential area. ( 3 ) ON 13-1-1959. the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued Notification (Annexure b ) No. F. I 5 (III)/59-LSG, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying that the land measuring 34. 070 acres and marked with blocks A to T and X in the annexure to the said notification (except certain categories of land) was likely to be acquired at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, the Planned Development of Delhi. According to the petitioner, the entire properties of the petitioners were situated in block T in the annexure to the said notification. Thereafter, several notifications were issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on various dates between 1961 and 1965, but the properties of the petitioners were not included in them. ( 4 ) ON 18-3-1966, the Delhi Administration issued a Notification (Annexure c ). No. F. A.-4 (19)/66-Landt, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act covering various khasra numbers of the petitioners, and it was declared therein that the said items of land were acquired for the public purpose, namely for the Planned Development of Delhi. By the same notification the Collector of Delhi was also directed under the provision in Section 7 of the Land. Acquisition Act to take order for the acquisition of the said items of land. It was stated in the writ petition that the houses of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 225 were built in a densely populated area and did not in any way violate the land use pattern provided in the Master Plan for Delhi, and that the rest of the petitioners Nos. It was stated in the writ petition that the houses of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 225 were built in a densely populated area and did not in any way violate the land use pattern provided in the Master Plan for Delhi, and that the rest of the petitioners Nos. 226 to 295 built their houses in the faith and belief that the policy of the Administration was not to acquire built-up areas in which various civic amenities had been provided by the public authorities. ( 5 ) ON 30-11-1966, the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi passed a Resolution No. 859 (Annexure d ) approving the note of its Chairman for regularisation of colonies built up unauthorisedly. The annexure to the said resolution shows that Shakarpur Extension Colony and two rows of plots near Shakarpur Khas Village, in which the houses of the petitioners had been built, were recommended for regularisation. ( 6 ) ON 19-7-1969, the Zonal Committee. Shahdara Zone, of the Municipal Corporation. Delhi, observed at Serial No. 22 of the minutes of their meeting (Annexure e ) on that date as follows:- "22. In the Draft Zonal Development Plan for E-8 (Khureji Khas) and E-12 (Shakarpur) the existing position of the built-up area be not disturbed. The area be re-surveyed and the vacant lands where are available be acquired for the various proposals suggested in the Draft Zonal Development Plan. The Proposal of the D. D. A. to acquire lands for allotment to House Building Cooperative Societies in Zone E-12 be dropped as it would render thousands of families homeless and the land for that purpose be selected somewhere else. " ( 7 ) ON 8-6-1970, the Standing Committee of the Delhi Development Authority noted in the minutes of their meeting (Annexure f ) held on that date that two Composite Plans for 8 unauthorised colonies falling in Shahadara Area were prepared. As regards Composite Plan No. II, it was noted in the said minute as under: - "2. Composite Plan No. II- It comprises area of (1) Shakarpur Extension; (2) (Ganesh Nagar; (3) Laxshmi Nagar; (4) Krishan Kunj; (5) Guru Arjan Nagar; (6) Guru Ram Das Nagar; (7) Guru Nanak Pura. The Physical surveys of all these areas were conducted by M. C. D. in 1967 and sent to us for the preparation of regularisation plan. Composite Plan No. II- It comprises area of (1) Shakarpur Extension; (2) (Ganesh Nagar; (3) Laxshmi Nagar; (4) Krishan Kunj; (5) Guru Arjan Nagar; (6) Guru Ram Das Nagar; (7) Guru Nanak Pura. The Physical surveys of all these areas were conducted by M. C. D. in 1967 and sent to us for the preparation of regularisation plan. Accordingly a composite regularisation plan has been prepared. " ( 8 ) THE Standing Committee discussed the two Composite Plans I and 2 prepared by the Planning Cell and passed a resolution (Annexure f ) on 30-7-1970 as under:- "resolved that composite plans I and II regarding regularisation of unauthorised colonies be approved subject to the following modifications:- Composite Plan No. I (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) While preparing the detailed layout plans and theproposed group housing pockets, efforts be made to adjust/retain, as far as possible, the structures constructed up to February, 1967. This decision would also be applicable in the case of Composite Plan No. 2. Composite Plan No. 2- A portion of the acquired land required immediately South-West of the existing Patparganj Road be reserved for accommodation/relocating families affected due to regularisation of plan proposals and was earmarked for community facilities. Shri S. C. Chhabra dissented. " ( 9 ) IT was stated in the writ petition that on 22-12-1909, the Union Minister for Health, Family Planning Works, Housing and Urban Development, in reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, gave an assurance that unapproved colomes built up before 1-2-1967 would be regularised ana true copies and translations of the questions and answers on the said subject in the Lok Sabha were filed by the pelitioneis as Annexures H. 1 and H. 2. ( 10 ) THE case of the petilioners was that Delhi according to the provision of law in Section 14 of the Delhi Developmnet Act, 1957, and the policy announced by the Goverment from lime to time, the built-up areas were not to be disturbed even if such areas were not in conformity with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Pun, and that though the present position of the buildings and the properties of the petitioners was in conformity with the purpose lor which the land has been shown in the Master Plan Delhi and the Draft Zonal Development Plan, the. Delhi Admistration proceeded with the acquisition of the propelties of the petitioners. ( 11 ) THE Collector announced his Awaid No. 2179 (Annexure d ) dated 18th Nov. 1968, in respect of the acquisition started by the Notitication (Annexure "c ). dated i 8-7-1906, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It has to be stated that in the said award only some of the properties were included and other properties were excluded from the acquisiton, porceedings on the ground that they were largely buit-up area and it was found at the site that full civic amenities had been provided, therein. The relevant portion of the award was as under: - "the land bearing Khasra Nos. 435/2. 61, 4/2. 1053/ 473 (0. 12 ). 1054/473 (6. 00), 1056. 4/7 (4. 19), 1057/ 477 (6. 09), 505 (2. l4), 1257/510. (8. 03), is largely built-up area. At the site it was found that full civic amenities had been provided to this area. . . Thus considering all the facts it is proposed that for the time being the area should be excluded from the present acquisition pending finai directions of the acquiring department". ( 12 ) WITH respect to sonic other properties, the Collector did not make any award nor indicated whether they were specifically excluded AGAIN, without any fresh notification for acquisition of the properties of the petitioners, the Collector pronounced another award. No. 7/1969 (Annexure J.), dated 12-6-1969, covering some of the properties which were not taken into consideration in his first award. In this award also. some Khasra Numbers were excluded on the ground that they were "built-up at site". ( 13 ) AGAIN, the Collector proceeded to pronounce two supplementary awards, Nos. 2179-A (Annexure k ) dated 28-2-1970 and 7/1969-A (Annexure L) dated 21-7-1970. In this award also. some Khasra Numbers were excluded on the ground that they were "built-up at site". ( 13 ) AGAIN, the Collector proceeded to pronounce two supplementary awards, Nos. 2179-A (Annexure k ) dated 28-2-1970 and 7/1969-A (Annexure L) dated 21-7-1970. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioners came to know that the respondents propose to allot some portion of the land under the petitioners colony to a Co-operative House Building Society known as the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply House Building Co-operative Society, after the demolition of the petitioners built-up structures, and a copy of a letter No. F. 13 (47)70landh, (Annexure m ), dated June, 1970, was filed in support of the said allegation. It was further stated in the writ petition that the respondents also propose to allot the remaining portion of the petitioners land for group-housing purposes as shown in the site map of the area (Annexure n ) issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 4. The petitioners alleged that the action of the respondents amounted to taking away the property from some of the citizens and giving the same to other citizens without there being any reasonable cause or any permissive provision of law, and that the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties of the petitioners were wholly illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, and were liable to be quashed. The petitioners further stated in the writ petition that on the basis of their legal rights and the policy statements made by the Government and the Delhi Administration from. time to time, and in view of the fact that most of the petitioners having deposited earnest money towards development charges, the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has sanctioned the supply of electricity to the said petitioners, and that there should, therefore, be no question of acquisition or demolition of the properties of the petitioners in the areas where all the civic amenities have already been provided by the public authorities. ( 14 ) WHILE so, respondent No. 4, Delhi Development Authority, issued notices under Sections 30 and 31 of the Delhi Development Act to most of the petitioners, (one such notice being Annexure 0 ) requiring them to show cause as to why the demolition of the buildings of the petitioners be not made. ( 14 ) WHILE so, respondent No. 4, Delhi Development Authority, issued notices under Sections 30 and 31 of the Delhi Development Act to most of the petitioners, (one such notice being Annexure 0 ) requiring them to show cause as to why the demolition of the buildings of the petitioners be not made. Respondent No. 4 also issued orders (one such order being Annexure p ) under Section 30 of the Delhi Development Act for the demolition of the buildings of the petitioners. On receiving the said notices and orders, the petitioners made representations to the concerned authorities, and according to the petitioners the said authorities gave assurances to the petitioners that the buildings of the petitioners will be regularised in due course, but the notices have neither been withdrawn nor cancelled, and the threat of demolition of the properties of the petitioners remained. ( 15 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition praying (1) that the entire acquisition proceedings be quashed and (2) that the respondents be restrained from taking possession, demolishing or in any way interfering with the properties of the petitioners. ( 16 ) A counter affidavit of Shri K. N. Kashyap, Deputy Secretary (Land and Building), Delhi Administration, Delhi, was filed on behalf of respondents I to 3 in opposition to the writ petition. In answer thereto, a rejoinder-affidavit of Shri Lal Singh was filed on behalf of the petitioners. ( 17 ) SHRI K. L. Rathee, learned counsel for the petitioners, put forward two propositions initially. The first was that the purpose for which the land in question is to be acquired has to be in accordance with the provisions in the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the second was that the acquisition of land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is to be resorted to only for procedural purposes. Shri Devinder K. Kapur, learned counsel for the respondents stated that he did not dispute the aforesaid propositions. The arguments, therefore, proceeded on the basis of the said propositions. ( 18 ) SHRI Rathee then advanced four contentions. Shri Devinder K. Kapur, learned counsel for the respondents stated that he did not dispute the aforesaid propositions. The arguments, therefore, proceeded on the basis of the said propositions. ( 18 ) SHRI Rathee then advanced four contentions. The first was that the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly the provisions in Sections 4 to 16, shows that only one award is contemplated in respect of all the land comprised in a notification under Section 6 of the Act and not several awards, that the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector is, therefore, to make only one award under Section II of the Act in regard to the land covered by each notification under Section 6, that on the other hand the Land Acquisition Collector had given in the present case more than one award in respect of the land covered by the notification (Annexure c ) under Section 6 of the Act which was contrary to law and was, therefore, liable to be struck down, and that all the properties which were not covered by the first award (Annexure I) could in no case be acquired and the acquisition proceedings in respect of them have to be quashed as being illegal. The learned counsel argued that, having made the main award (Annexure 1 ) in resepct of the properties covered by the notification (Annexure c ), dated 18-34966, there was no further jurisdiction left with the Land Acquisition Collector to make any other award as he had become functus officio after the issue of the said main award. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Land Acquisition Collector could make more than one award in respect of the land covered by the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Shri Rathee REFERRED TO to the provisions in Section 4 to 16 of the Land Acquisition Act and relied particularly upon certain words and expressions used in Sections II, 12 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 19 ) UNDER Section 4 of the Act, the appropriate Government notifies that a certain land is needed or is likely to be needed for a stated public purpose. This is followed by a preliminary investigation and the hearing of objections to the proposed acquisition. After considering the objections to the acquisition, if any, the Government decides whether it would proceed with the acquisition or not. This is followed by a preliminary investigation and the hearing of objections to the proposed acquisition. After considering the objections to the acquisition, if any, the Government decides whether it would proceed with the acquisition or not. If it decides to acquire, it is open to the Government to declare by notification under Section 6 of the Act that the entire land, mentioned in the notification under Section 4 or any part thereof is needed for a public purpose which has to be stated in the notification. After the amendment of Section 6 by Act 13 of 1967. it is clear that different declarations may be made and notified under Section 6 from time to time in respect of different parcels of a land covered by the same notification under Section 4 -. sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-Section (2 ). After the said declaration under Section 6, the Government has to direct the Collector under Section 7 of the Act to take order for the acquisition of the land. The Collector has thereupon, under Section 8. to cause the land to be marked out and measured, and a plan to be made of the same. Then, under Section 9, the Collector has to issue notices to persons interested in the manner provided in the said section, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. Section 10 empowers the Collector to require and enforce the making of statements as to interest of persons possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof. The Collector has then to make. an enquiry under Section II and make an award stating:- " (I) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or whose claims he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him". ( 20 ) IT has to be noted that the declaration under Section 6 may be made inrespect of the entire land covered by the notification under Section -4, or there may be different declarations made Irom time to time in respect of different parcels of the land covered by the notification under Section 4. After the declaration is made in respect ot a parcel of land under Section 6, it is the said land that has been REFERRED TO to and provided for in Sections 7 to II. The expressions "whenever any land shall have been so declared" and "take order for the acquisition of the land" in Section 7; "shall thereupon cause the land", "it" and "a plan to be made of the same" in Section 8; "near the land to be taken", "take possession of the land", "all interests in such land", "particulars of the land so needed", "all persons interested in the land" and "to the measurement maue under Section 8" in Section 9; "any interest in the land" in Sectioi. 10; and "value of the land", "area of the land" and "allowed for the land" in Section II, clearly show that all the said sections REFERRED TO to the land" in respect of which a declaration hasbeen made under Section 6. Thus, the language used in the said sections suggests that the land covered by a notilication under Section 6 has to be dealt with as a whole without being split up, and the compensation amount has to be apportioned in the award under Section 11 amongst "all the persons" known or believed to be interested in "ths land". That means that there has to be a single award for the entire land covered by a notification under Section 6, and the Collector has to apportion the compensation amount amount all the persons interested in that land. This view is further supported by the expressions "make an award" in Section II; "such award" in Section 12, "his award", and "the award in Section 12; and "made an award under Section 11" and "take possession of the land" in Section 16. ( 21 ) THE question under discussion arose in Prag Narain v. The Collector of Agra, AIR 1932 P. C. 1020, and in Mohamad Sharif vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 Gujarat 2690. ( 21 ) THE question under discussion arose in Prag Narain v. The Collector of Agra, AIR 1932 P. C. 1020, and in Mohamad Sharif vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 Gujarat 2690. In the former case, the Privy Council observed as follows: - "as their Lordships read the Act the duty of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, is to make an award in regard to three matters, viz. , (1) the area of the land included in the award; (2) the total compensation to be allowed for that land; and (3) the apportionment of that compensation among all the persons interested in that land. The Act does not appear to contemplate that where more than one person is interested in a parcel of land there should be more than one award, relating thereto. Their Lordships do not by this mean that the whole of the land at any one time to be acquired under the Act must necessarily be dealt within one award: but only that any one piece of land (forming part of the whole) in which more than one person has an interest for which he can claim compensation, ought not to be made the subject of more than one award. Each award should contain within its four corners the fixing of the value of the land with which it deals and the apportionment of that value between the various persons interested in that land". ( 22 ) THEIR Lordships further observed as follows; - "in the present case the difficulty has arisen from the fact that the officer has dealt with the land by two documents, and so far as the 495 sq. yards are concerned, that particular parcel of land figures in both. Their Lordships however think that the two documents (the later of which specifically refers to the earlier) must be read together as constituting one award in relation to that parcel of land by which the officer awards the compenslion to be allowed for that land at a figure of Rs. 8 per sq. yard and awards the apportionment of that compensation in the proportion of one fourth to the appellant and three-fourths to the tenants. 8 per sq. yard and awards the apportionment of that compensation in the proportion of one fourth to the appellant and three-fourths to the tenants. " ( 23 ) REFERRING to the above decision of the Privy Council and the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujurat (N. M. Miabhoy C. J. and N. K. Vakil J. J.) observed in the case of Mohamad Sharif (Supra) as follows: - "the ratio o. " this decision (of the Privy Council) therefore, appears to us to be that, having regard to the scheme and the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of a parcel of land only one award is contemplated with reference to matters mentioned in Section II of the Act. But, at tile same time, it does not mean that the award must necessarily be contained in one document. That one award could be constituted by two documents provided it amounts to one decision". ( 24 ) THELEARNED Judges also observed as under:- "in our view, the concept of one award, does not necessarily imply that it should be contained in a single document. It would not invariably and in all cases rule out the possibility of there being more than one document constituting one award. The expression award, in our opinion, means the decision to be arrived at by the Collector on tile matters mentioned in Section 11. The said decision of the Collector under given exceptional circumstances may be contained in more than one document. So long as one or more documents constitute one compendious decision of the Lana Acquisition Officer or the Coheclor, the mere fact mat it is contained in more than one document would not amount to two or more separate awards. In this view of ours, we receive support from the Privy Council decision in Frug Nuruin vs. The Collector of Agru (supit! ). When. Lherefore the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) deals with the land by two documents, it has to be determined whether these are independent awards consisting of independent decisions in respect of matters to be considered by the acquiring officer orwhether, the two together only constitute one whole decision of the Collector in respect of the land concerned and in respect of all matters required to be considered under Section 11 concerning all the persons interested therein. " ( 25 ) THE learned Judges, however, added: "we would, however, like io add that dealing with the same plece of land in respect ot matters REFERRED TO to in Section 11 of the Act, by more than one document, cannot be encouraged and may only be justified as an exception and not as a rule. Law expects the making of only one award and if the provisions of the Act are followed strictly and they should be, there can hardly be only scope or justification for there being more than one document constituting the "award". Court cannot look with favour any laxity in following the provisions of law and more often than not the act of dealing with the land by more than one document is likely to be "struck down as being illegal. " ( 26 ) IT is clear (from the above decisions) that in respect of a parcel of land covered by a declaration notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, there has to be, normally, only one decision or award by the Collector dealing with the matters mentioned in Section 11 of the Act, viz. , the area of the parcel of land, the compensation allowed by him for the parcel of land, and the apportionment of that compensation among all pesons interested in that parcel of land. There may. however, be more than one award in exceptional circumstances, provided the said awards are not inconsistent decisions regarding the parcel of land, but constitute one decision in respect of the parcel of land and all matters required to be considered under Section 11 concerning all the persons interested in that parcel of land. ( 27 ) IN the present case. the declaration (Annexure C) notified under Section 6 of the Act covered about 1752. 2 (subsequently corrected in the award (Annexure 1) as 1760. 01) bighas of land in the revenue estate of Mandauli Fazalpur, and about 1153. 15 bighas in the revenue estate of Shakarpur Khas. The first award (Annexure 1), dated 18-11-1968, related to 1760. 01 bighas of land in Mandauli Fazalpur. The Collector awarded compensation only for about 1559. 01 bighas, and excluded 210 bighas out of which, an area of. 04 bighas was excluded from the award for the reason that there was an order of stay by the High Court of Delhi, an area of 16. 01 bighas of land in Mandauli Fazalpur. The Collector awarded compensation only for about 1559. 01 bighas, and excluded 210 bighas out of which, an area of. 04 bighas was excluded from the award for the reason that there was an order of stay by the High Court of Delhi, an area of 16. 01 bighas was excluded from the award on the ground that it was found to be built-up area in respect of which directions of the acquiring department were required, and an area of 193. 12 bighas was excluded on the grounds that it also appeared to be builtup area and the matter required to be enquired into, and there was also an order of stay passed by the High Court in respect of the same. As regards the aforesaid area of 210 bighas left out from the award (Annexure T ). the Collector made a supplemental award (Annexure K ). dated 28-2-1970, excluding again 17. 15 bighas from the said supplemental award. ( 28 ) AS regards 1153. 15 bighas of land in Shakarpur Khas, the Collector made an award (Annexure J), dated 12-6-1969. Out of the said extent of 1153. 15 bighas, he excluded 462. 13 bishas on the ground that it was found to be built-up area and directions from the Housing Department were required and awarded compensation for the rest of the land. ( 29 ) AS regards the aforesaid extent of 462. 13 bighas of land, a sunplemental award (Annexure L), dated 21-7-1970, was made by the Collector excluding again one bigha 4 biswas from the same. ( 30 ) THUS. the awards T and T dealt with non-built up areas and the Supplemental awards K and L dealt with built-up areas in the land covered by the notification (Annexure O. There was nothing inconsistent between them and they constituted one compendious decision of the Collector in respect of the narcel of land notified under Section 6 and all matters required to be considered under Section 11 concerning all the persons interested in that parcel of land. It follows that all the four awards (Annexures 1, J, K and L) read together were quite legal and valid, and that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. It follows that all the four awards (Annexures 1, J, K and L) read together were quite legal and valid, and that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. ( 31 ) THE second contention of Shri Rathee was that according to the provision- of law in the proviso to Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. as well as the policy statements and other statements made by the respondents from time to time, built-up areas were not to be disturbed even if the buildings thereon were not being used in conformity with the Master Plan for Delhi and the Zonal Development Plan, that in the present case, however, the user of the buildings of the petitioners was quite in conformity with the purpose for which the land has been shown in the Master Plan for Delhi and. the draft ZonalDevelopment Plan. and tha. t the properties of the petitioners could not. therefore, be acquired or directed to be demolished. ( 32 ) SECTION 14 of the Delhi Development Act reads as follows:- "14. User of land and buildings in contravention of plans. After the coming into operation of any of the plans in a Zone no person shall use or permit to be used any land or building in that Zone otherwise than in conformity with such plan Provided that it shall be lawful to continue to use upon such terms and condition s as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf any land or building for the purose and to the extent for and to which it is being used upon the date on which such plan comes into force". ( 33 ) THE main part of the section prohibits the user of a land or building in a zone otherwise than in conformity with either the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan for the Zone. The proviso lays down an exception to the main provision. and states that the previous user to which the land or building was being put on the date on which such plan came into force can be lawfully continued upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in that behalf. It is common ground that no regulations have been made under the proviso. Relying on the said circumstances. Shri Davinder K. Kapur. learned counsel for the respondents. It is common ground that no regulations have been made under the proviso. Relying on the said circumstances. Shri Davinder K. Kapur. learned counsel for the respondents. sought to contend in reply to the contention of Shri Rathee on the basis of the proviso to Section 14, that since no regulations have, been mode under the proviso, the exception under the proviso does not apply at all and the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the proviso. But, the said contention of Shri Kapur cannot be accepted. ( 34 ) THE proviso lays down an exception to the main section and states that it shall be lawful to continue the previous user even if the said user is different from that mentioned in the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan upon such terms and conditions as may he prescribed by regulations made in that behalf. It is true that the proviso states that the continuation of the user has to be upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in that behalf. But, that does not mean that the exception recognised under the proviso does not operate so long as no regulations are made. The word"upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf" in the proviso only enably the authority concerned to make regulations prescribing terms and conditions for the continuation of the previous user. If regulations are not made prescribing such terms and conditions, it only means that the continuation of the uer permitted by the proviso would be subject to no terms and conditions. Inother words the petitioners do not lose the benefit of the proviso if they are otherwise entitled to it. merely because the authority concerned has not chosen to make regulations prescribing terms and conditions for the continuation of the previous user. The concerned authority by choosing not to avail of the enabling provision in the proviso, cannot circumvent the rest of the provision in the proviso and deprive the -petitioners of the benefit conferred thereunder. ( 35 ) A similar view was taken by H. R. Khanna, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Saroum Market Shopkeepers Association and others v. Union of India and others, (1964) 66 P. L. R. 1144. The learned judge observed at page 1149 as under:- "mr. Aggarwal has. ( 35 ) A similar view was taken by H. R. Khanna, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Saroum Market Shopkeepers Association and others v. Union of India and others, (1964) 66 P. L. R. 1144. The learned judge observed at page 1149 as under:- "mr. Aggarwal has. however, urged that the above proviso is not applicable because no regulations mentioned in the proviso have so far been framed. In this respect. I am of the view that the nonframing of the regulations cannot stand in the way of the persons to whom the shops in dispute are proposed to be allotted from using them for the purpose of selling their merchandise. The proviso to Section 14. in my opinion, carves out an exception to the general rule laid down in that section. The exception embodied in the proviso would, however, be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in this behalf. Where no. regulations are made, the use, of the land for a purpose for which it was being used on the date the plan came into force would not make it subject to any further restriction. " ( 36 ) AFTER distinguishing the decision in Narendra Kumar v. The Union of India, 1969 (2) S. C. R. 375, the learned Judge observed as follows:- "the proviso to section 14 of the Act in the present case, however, does not create a disability but enables the use of land for a purpose for which it was being previously used and the proposed allottees of the shops cannot be deprived of the benefit of that proviso because of the omission of the authorities concerned to frame regulations mentioned in the proviso. " ( 37 ) THEN, after referring to a passage at page 48 of the Master Plan for Delhi, the learned Judge further observed as follows:- "the above observations in my opinion, cannot nullify the effect of statutory provisions as contained in the proviso to section 14 of the Act. It would, however, always be open to the authorities concerned to make regulations so as to restrict the use of the land for a purpose for which it was being previously used but as long as those regulations are not framed a party cannot be prevented from taking the full advantage of the proviso to section 14. It would, however, always be open to the authorities concerned to make regulations so as to restrict the use of the land for a purpose for which it was being previously used but as long as those regulations are not framed a party cannot be prevented from taking the full advantage of the proviso to section 14. " ( 38 ) THUS, the argument of Shri Kapur is not tenable. Coming now to the contention of Shri Rathee, it consists of two parts. The first relates to the acquisition of the properties of the petitioners, and the second relates to the demolition of the said properties. The argument under the first part was that the respondents were not entitled to take the proceedings for acquisition of the properties of the petitioners for two reasons, namely, (a) by reason of the proviso to Section 14, and (b) by reason of the policy statements and other statements made by the respondents from time to time. The first reason is clearly untenable. In the present case. the acquisition of the properties of the petitioners was by the Government (Respondents 1 to 3) under the Land Acquisition Act. The said acquisition had no connection at all with the proviso to section 14 of the Delhi Development Act which merely provides for continuance of prior user even if the said user contravenes the land-use in the Master Plan for Delhi or the Zonal Development Plan. ( 39 ) THE provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the provisions of the Delhi Development Act are independent of each other (vide the decision of a Division Bench (Hardaval Hardy and T. V. R. Tatachari. J. J.) of this court in Nagrik Adhikar Samiti v. The Delhi Administration, C. W. No. 42 of 1969, pronounced on 26-11-19690. Each of the Acts operates by itself, and the Authorities under the two Acts also function independently of each other. In the present case, as already stated, the acquisition when it was commenced, was under the Land Acquisition Act, and the Authorities concerned were respondents 1 to 3. The said acquisition, when it was commenced, was not under the Delhi Development Act or for any of the purposes thereunder. In the present case, as already stated, the acquisition when it was commenced, was under the Land Acquisition Act, and the Authorities concerned were respondents 1 to 3. The said acquisition, when it was commenced, was not under the Delhi Development Act or for any of the purposes thereunder. ( 40 ) THE benefit confered by the proviso to Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, is effective only against an action under the said Act, taken by the Delhi Development Authority (respondent No. 4) and not against acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act by respondents 1 to 3. It is not, therefore, correct to say that by virtue of the proviso to Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, the properties of the petitioners could not be acquired at all by respondents I to 3 under the Land Acquisition Act. the second reason was that by reason of the policy statements and other statements made by the respondents from time to time, the respondents were not entitled to acquire the properties of the petitioners. In support of this reason, Annexures D, E, F and H-2 were filed by the petitioners along with their writ petition, and Annexures PA to PA-IV were filed along with their rejoinder. Annexures D, E, F and H-2 have already been REFERRED TO to in the course of narration of the facts. All of them refer to regularisation of unauthorised colonies like that of the petitioners and not to acquisition of the same. As such, they do not throw any light on the question of acquisition. ( 41 ) ANNEXURE PA-1 is a copy of a press note, dated 1-7-1960 in which it was stated that the Delhi Administration, in consultation with the Delhi Municipal Corporation, decided that any lands covered by the Notification, dated 13-11-1959, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for which layout plans had been fully sanctioned by the competent Authority like the Delhi Municipal Corporation, should be taken out of the purview of the said notification. A list of colonies for which lay-out plans were fully sanctioned by the Delhi Municipal Corporation was set out in the press note. Accordingly on the same date, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, withdrew the said colonies from acquisition by issuing a Gazette Notification (Annexure PA ). Accordingly on the same date, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, withdrew the said colonies from acquisition by issuing a Gazette Notification (Annexure PA ). The said notification shows that the lay-out plans for all the colonies mentioned therein were approved by the Delhi Municipal Corporation prior to 13-11-1959. ( 42 ) ANNEXURE PA-III is a copy of a press note, dated 19-7-1961, in which it was explained that there were by the said date 118 unauthorised colonies in Delhi, that out of them 76 colonies were covered by the notification, dated 13-ll-1959, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the remaining 42 colonies were not covered by any notification, that the 76 colonies had built-up areas in varying degrees which had grown up in a haphazard manner, that the Corporation had prepared regularisation plans for 52 colonies while the Delhi Development Authority had prepared such plans for three out of four colonies in its charge, that the Administration will withdraw a built- up area from the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on receipt of a certificate from the Municipal Corporation or the Delhi Development Authority, as the case may be, to the effect that the area was covered by a sanctioned layout plan and should be released, and that the said decision will not apply to those constructions which had come up after the issue of the notification of 13-11-1959 in the case of areas falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, and after the date of declaration (29-11-1958) of the area as "development area" in the case of lands under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Development Authority, since those who had built up houses after the aforesaid dates had done so with full knowledge of the implication of the notification or the declaration concerned. Annexure PA-II is a copy of the notification issued on 24-10-1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of a further extent of 16,000 acres for planned development of Delhi. In this notification, it was clearly stated that lands in respect of which lay-out plans and service plans had been sanctioned by the competent authority before 24-10-1961, were excluded from the said notification. In this notification, it was clearly stated that lands in respect of which lay-out plans and service plans had been sanctioned by the competent authority before 24-10-1961, were excluded from the said notification. Lastly, Annexure PA-IV is a statement made by the Chief Executive Councillor on 28-10-1966 in ihe Metropolitan Council on the problem of unauthorised construction in Delhi. In the course of that statement, the Chief Executive Councillor appears to have stated that it was decided (hut "unauthorised construction. which is of substantial nature and falls in densely populated areas, and was put up prior to the enforcement of the Master Plan (1st September. 1962) and does not violate its land-use pattern, and can be fitted into a proper lay-out/ service plan would also be considered for regularisation. " ( 43 ) THUS, the aforesaid Annexures PA to PA-IV contain statements of polity to withdraw from acquisition, lands, even in authorised colonies, in respect of which lay-out plans and service plans had been sanctioned by the competent Authoritybefore certain dates. The said statements did not apply to the colony of the petitioners, since it was an unauthorised colony in which neither the lay-out plans and the service plans nor the building plans for the construction of houses were got sanctioned from any competent local Authority as averred by Shri Kashyap in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his counter-affidavit. The said averment was merely denied in a general manner in the rejoinder. of the petitioners, and they have not produced any sanction orders or other documents to show that the averment was not true or correct. It is, therefore, clear that the Annexures PA to PA-IV are not of any assistance to the petitioners. It follows that the second reason also is without any substance, and it cannot be said that by reason of policy statements and other statements made by the respondents from time to time, the respondents were not entitled to acquire the properties of the petitioners. It follows that the second reason also is without any substance, and it cannot be said that by reason of policy statements and other statements made by the respondents from time to time, the respondents were not entitled to acquire the properties of the petitioners. ( 44 ) COMING next to the second part of the contention, the argument of Shri Rathee was that the properties of the petitioners could not be directed to be demolished by the Delhi Development Authority under Sections 30 and 31 of the Delhi Development Act, and the notices and orders of demolition (two of which are Annexures 0 and P) issued by the Delhi Development Authority should be quashed for the reasons (a) by reason of the proviso to Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, and by reason of the policy statements and other statements made by the respondents from time to time. ( 45 ) AS regards the first reason, Shri Rathee relied upon the proviso to Section 14. He also pointed out that even the Master Plan for Delhi contemplated the continuation of the previous user, and relied upon the following passage in column 2 at page 25 of the Master Plan:- "all the densities are indicated in the Land-use Plan. All new developments will take place according to the densities shown. But as a general rule, where developments have taken place completely or partially, the existing pattern of densities is to be maintained except where redevelopment and increase in densities have been specifically recommended above. " ( 46 ) THE proviso to Section 14 and the passage in the Master Plan, however, do not have any bearing on the notices and orders of demolition (Annexures 0 and P) issued by the Delhi Development Authority under Sections 30 and F 31 of the Delhi Development Act. Section 31 empowers the Competent Authority to stop any development commenced in contravention of the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan or without the permission, approval or sanction REFERRED TO to in section 12 or in contravention of any conditions subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted. Section 31 empowers the Competent Authority to stop any development commenced in contravention of the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan or without the permission, approval or sanction REFERRED TO to in section 12 or in contravention of any conditions subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted. Section 30 empowers the Competent Authority to direct demolition of any development which has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention of the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan or without the permission, approval or sanction REFERRED TO to in section 12 or in contravention of any conditions subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted. The Annexures o and p show that demolition was directed on the ground that the permission of the Delhi Development Authority was not obtained as required under Section 12 (3) (i) and 12 (1) of the Delhi Development Act, and not on the ground that the user of the buildings was in contravention of the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan. Therefore, the contention of Shri Rathee based on the proviso to Section 14 and the passage in the Master Plan regarding the continuance of the previous user have no bearing on the validity of the notices and orders (Annexures 0 and P) for deinolit on of the buildings. Thus, the first reason is without any substance. ( 47 ) AS regards the second reason, Shri Rathee REFERRED TO to Annexures D, E, F and H-2 and PA to PA-IV, and also certain averments in the counter-affidavit of Shri Kashyap, and argued that they show that the policy of the Government was to regularise unauthorised colonies including that of the petitioners, and that in view of that declared policy, the notices and orders for demolition of the properties of the petitioners should be quashed. ( 48 ) THE Annexures mentioned above have already been REFERRED TO to earlier in this judgment. Annexure d is a resolution, dated 30-11-1966, passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi recommending the regularisation of the colony of the petitioners. ( 48 ) THE Annexures mentioned above have already been REFERRED TO to earlier in this judgment. Annexure d is a resolution, dated 30-11-1966, passed by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi recommending the regularisation of the colony of the petitioners. Annexure e is a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the Special Zonal Committee, Shahdara Zone of the Municipal Corporattion, Delhi, held on 19-7-1969, in which it was recommended that the existing position of the built-up area in Shakarpur be not disturbed, and that the proposal of the Delhi Development Authority to acquire lands for allotment to House Building Cooperative Societies in Zone E-12 (Shakarpur) be dropped as it would render thousands of families homeless and the land for that purpose be selected somewhere else. Annexure f is a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Delhi Development Authority held on 8-6-1970, in which, it was noted that the composite plan for 8 unauthorised colonies (including the colony of the petitioners) was prepared, and it was recommended that regularisation of the said colonies be approved subject to certain modifications mentioned therein. Annexure H-2 is an extract of a statement said to have been made by the Union Minister for Health, Family Planning, Works. Housing and Urban Development in Lok Sabha on 22-12-1969 that the Government decided to consider the regularisation of unapproved colonies built up before 1-2-1967, as far as possible. Out of the Annexures PA to PA-IV, only Annexure PA-IV contains a statement of the Chief Executive Councillor of the Metropolitan Council that regularisation of unauthorised constructions put up prior to 1-9-1962 would be considered, provided they do not violate the land-use pattern in the Master Plan. ( 49 ) THE above Annexures do contain statements, particularly of the Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that the built-up areas in unauthorised colonies, particularly the colony of the petitioners. would be regularised. The policy of the Government regarding such regularisation of built-up areas in unauthorised colonies which have been acquired was explained in paragraphs O. R. and 8 to 17 of the Counter-affidavit of Shri Kashyap as follows:- "it must be stated that there is no cause of grievance to the applicants in view of the liberal policies of the Government regarding persons displaced in acquisition proceedings. These policies have been declared from time to time and are based onhumanitarian considerations. Government have decided to regularise all the 103 unauthorised colonies which came up before 1962 i. e. before the coming into force of the Master Plan. Subsequently, the Municipal Corporation conducted a survey in February, 1967 and it recommended the regularisation of another 101 colonies. Of these. Government can regularise only those colonies which conform to the land- use requirements of the Master Plan. Government have decided to allot plots of land to those for whom it is not possible to adjust their structures in the redevelopment plans of these unauthorised colonies. Alternative plots are offered to all the individuals who have built structures in these unauthorised colonies which cannot be regularised owing to the land-use requirements of the Master Plan or where the land is required for other purposes. " "r. The alternative plots are provided on the reserve price which is calculated on the basis of the cost of acquisition and the cost of development. The objective of the entire scheme of rehabilitating those whose plots are affected in the scheme of redevelopment of unauthorised colonies is to develop the areas of the unauthorised colonies in the planned manner. " "8 to 17. In reply to paras 8 to 17 of the petition, I crave leave to refer to the submissions made in preliminary paras A to R herein above and especially paras 0 and R thereof wherein a policy in respect of unauthorised colonies which came up before 1962 i. e. before the coming into force of the Master Plan and subsequently those which came up prior to February, 1967 has been explained. The colony of the petitioners known as Shakarpur Extension is unauthorised colony and the petitioners fully knowing the fact that the lamd in question is the subject matter of acquisition and is to be finally acquired by the Goveminent for the scheme of planned development of Delhi, had purchased/raised constructions thereon unlawfully. All the constructions raised by them are unauthorised and without having got the lay-out/service plans or even building plans sanctioned from the Competent Local Authority. Even otherwise the law provides that such illegal and unauthorised constructions should be demolished by the authorities. All the constructions raised by them are unauthorised and without having got the lay-out/service plans or even building plans sanctioned from the Competent Local Authority. Even otherwise the law provides that such illegal and unauthorised constructions should be demolished by the authorities. However, keeping in view the humanitarian grounds, the Government has gone to the extent to consider regularisation of such unauthorised construetions /colonies and making them the lawful owners and regularisation "of constructions. The colony of the petitioners known as Shakarpur Extension falls in the 101 unauthorised colonies and as per the policy decision of the Government the regularisation plan for this colony along with other such colonies will be prepared by Municipal Corporation of Delhi/delhi Development Authority and if the petitioners land is shown adjusted in that plan and is not required for any specific purpose, they are not going to be uprooted and the land after acquisition would be leasedout to the individuals after charging premimum equivalent to the cost of acquisition and the cost of the development and other charges. No lease would be given in respect of any property/land which docs not conform to the land-use pattern of the Master Plan or which is required for any community facilities and is not adjusted in the regularisation plan. in view of the position explained above, there appears to be hardly any ground to raise any objections against the acquisition of the petitioners land in dispute. " ( 50 ) IN answer to the above averments in the counter-affidavit, it was stated in the rejoinder-affidavit that the said averments in the counter-affidavit support the case of the petitioners for the regularisation of their colony, and that, however, the question of offering alternative plots to the petitioners does not arise because their dwelling units conform to the provisions of the land-use pattern of the Master Plan for Delhi.