Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) PETITIONERS in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, have sought direction against the respondents to accept for registration and then to register a sale deed executed by petitioner No. l in favour of petitioner No. 2 with respect of 17 bighas 5 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No. 198 (4-16), 205 (4-16), 379 Min. (l-17), 380 (4-16) situated in village Shahurpur, Tehsil Mehrauli. . ( 2 ) IT is the petitioners c,ase that on 17. 3. 1989petitionerno. l agreed to sell the aforesaid land for a consideration of Rs. 21,50,000. 00 in favour of petitioner. No. 2 arid as per the terms of agreement entire sale consideration has since been paid by petitioner No. 2 to petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 has also delivered peaceful and vacant possession of the land to petitioner No;2 and it is now petitioner No. 2 who is in occupation of the land. Petitioners also applied to the Competent Authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for obtaining the necessary no Objection. Certificate under Section 269 UL (3) which was granted on 12. 7. 1989. Necessary permission as required under Section 230 A (1) of the said Income Tax Act was also sought which was also granted by the concerned officer. After obtaining the necessary permissions, petitioners approached respondent No. 4 for getting the sale deed registered which had been executed by petitioner No. l in favour of petitioner No. 2 but respondent No. 4 declined to accept the document for registration and/ or to register the same without a no Objection Certificate under Section 4 of the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the petitioners, permission under the Act is not required for the reason that acquisition proceedings qua the property in question were quashed by this court in a writ petition filed by petitioner No. l, being C. W. 532/86, which was decided on 20. 9-1990 following the decision in B. R. Gupta v. Union of India and others (1989 - 37 DLT 150 ). In view of the quashing of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the provision of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are no! applicable and for getting the sale deed registered, permission under the Act is not at all required. In view of the quashing of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the provision of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are no! applicable and for getting the sale deed registered, permission under the Act is not at all required. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have not filed any affidavit in reply. Rule, D. B. was issued on 16. 3. 1993 and the petition was ordered to be heard along with other connected matters. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) OUR attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the decision in CW 532/86 titled as Prem Pandhi v. Union of India and others (decided on 20. 9. 1990 ). Following the ratio in B. R. Gupta s case the report under Section 5-A and Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act along with the subsequent acquisition proceedings were quashed. On going through the file of CW 532/86 we find that the land, which is now the subject matter of transfer by petitioner No. l in favour of petitioner No. 2 was included in the Declaration made on 20. 5. 1985 under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Art and the said notification was sought to be quashed in CW 532/86 whch was as a matter of fact quashed on 20. 9. 1990. As such on the date when parties approached respondent No. 4 for getting the sale deed registered, there were no acquisition proceedings pending. Section 4 of the Act as such will have no application. An application seeking permission to transfer land is required to be made only in such type of cases where a person is desirous to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise any land which is referred to in Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 refers to such of the lands which are situated in Delhi, which are proposed to be acquired or in relation to which a declaration to that effect has been made by the Central Government under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the land is needed for a public purpose. Since proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act stood quashed in earlier petition, i. e. , CW 532/86 which was preferred by petitioner No. l, there was no question of any permission being required as a condition precedent for registration. Since proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act stood quashed in earlier petition, i. e. , CW 532/86 which was preferred by petitioner No. l, there was no question of any permission being required as a condition precedent for registration. The act of respondent No. 4,in asking the petitioners to produce no objection is unwarranted in law. . ( 6 ) IN view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000. 00. Respondent No. 4 is directed to accept the sale deed for registration and then to register the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from today.