MAHINDER NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner questions the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land which was purchased by him at a public auction held in pursuance of powers conferred upon the Regional Settlement Commissioner under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Act No. 44 of 1954 ). The public auction at which the petitioner purchased the land, was held on 7th June, 1960, and he was the highest bidder in the same of Rs. 77,070. The petitioner had purchased the land, as it is evident from the sale certificate as freehold land. The property which was purchased is known as Garden Aliwala, and the same is located in the revenue estate of Mehrauli The khasra numbers of the land which was acquired are mentioned in the sale certificate as 1303 (0-13), 1304 (0-18), 1305 (0-10), 1306 (1-0), 1307 (0-18), 1309 (0-18), 1310 (1-11), 1311 (1-10), 1312 (1-10), 131? (0-17), 1314 (0-17), 1315 (4-16), 1310 (4-5), 1317 (2-6), 1326 (4-2), 1331 (1-0), 1332 (0-17) 133? (l-18), 1336 (0-15), 1472 (0-10), 1475 (0-14), 2855/1470 (0-2), 1322 (1-14), and the land measures 34 bighas and 18 biswas. ( 2 ) THE respondent Union of India issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of approximately 34,078 acres of land, being notification No. F. 15 (111)/ 59-LSG dated 13th November, 1959. In terms of this notification "government land and Evacuee land" was specifically exempted from that acquisition notice. The sale of the land in favour of the petitioner having taken place on 7th June, 1960, the land which was purchased by the petitioner was evacuee land at the time of publication of the aforesaid notification dated 13th November, 1959, and as such was exempted from acquisition in terms of that Section 4 notification itself. ( 3 ) WHAT has been purported to be done in this case is that the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 has been issued, being notification No. F. 4 (98) /64-Landh. which is stated to be dated 2nd January, 1987. This Section 6 notification has. clearly, in the facts and circumstances of the case been issued without there being a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the land which was purchased by the petitioner at the public auction held on 7th June, 1960. which is stated to be dated 2nd January, 1987. This Section 6 notification has. clearly, in the facts and circumstances of the case been issued without there being a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the land which was purchased by the petitioner at the public auction held on 7th June, 1960. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment reported. as 1965p. L. R. 616 (Smt. Chain Kaur v. The Chief Commissioner, Delhi and others), (1) wherein it was held that when there is no notification under Section 4, the machinery provided by the Land Acquisition Act cannot start to function and no further proceedings can be taken for the purpose of acquisition; of that land. Justice Bedi who delivered that judgment, relied. upon a judgment in State of Bombay v. Chaturbhuj Nenshi, AIR 1966 Guj 185 (2) which was to that effect. It is clear from Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act that for a Section 6 notification to be effective there has to be a pre-existing. notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 4 ) IN this case as there is no notification covering the land belonging to the petitioner, under Section 4 of the Act, Section 6 notification cannot be sustained, nor can any subsequent proceedings taken thereafter by the authority under the Land Acquisition Act, be sustained either. In the Gujarat. judgment referredto above. Justice Bhagwati speaking for a Division Bench of that Court, has held that the Act does not contemplate acquisition of land without issue of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, for the determination of compensation for acquisition of land. ( 5 ) BESIDES the above motioned case, there is a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case Nanak Chand Sharma v. Union of India and ethers, 1986 Delhi Law Times 246. (3) The Division Bench in that case said : "in addition to what may be stated in these judgments the provision of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act clearly exclude the possibility of the Government acquiring its own land. The provisions are that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official gazette. The provisions are that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official gazette. The subsequent provisions of Sections 5-A. 5, 9 and 10 and the making of the Award showed that the ownership of the land is transferred on the date of taking possession under the Award. In order to acquire any land under the Land Acquisition Act which would result ownership being transferred to the Government ; it is necessary that the land should not belong to the Government oil the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This position of law is reinforced by the fact that only the aggrieved person can file objections under Section 5-A. The petitioner not being aggrieved on the date of Section 4 notification when the land belonged to the Central Government was not in a position to file the objections. So, from all points of view the notification could not apply to the land already owned by the Central Government. " ( 6 ) FOR the aforestated reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the writ sought by him. The land in this case was evacuee land and could not be subject-matter of acquisition proceedings. The notification issued under Section 6 of the Act with respect to the land purchased by the petitioner has to be quashed, and is hereby quashed. The award No. 60182-83 dated 17th January, 1983, in so far as it relates to the land belonging to the petitioner, being without jurisdiction, is also quashed. ( 7 ) IT is stated that the petitioner is still in possession of the land in question. As such no other orders are required. ( 8 ) "this writ petition succeeds. There will be no order as to costs.