D. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, filed almost two decades ago, the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, seeks an appropriate writ, quashing: (i) declaration bearing No. F. No. 1 (52)/63 Landh dated 30 January 1964 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short the Act ), insofar as it relates to Khasra No. 230, in the area of Mauza Bahapur, Tehsil and District Delhi; (ii) letter/order dated 17 August 1984, intimating the petitioner that their request for the grant of exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the ULCRA ) in respect of the said land had been rejected as the land stands notified under Section 6 of the Act and (iii) directing the respondents to denotify the said khasra from the notification under Section 6 of the Act. A direction is also sought to the respondents to grant exemption under Section 20 of the ULCRA. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are as follows: the petitioner obtained from one Delhi-Shimla Catholic Archdiocese, New Delhi, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, a lease of the subject land admeasuring approx. 19413 sq. mtrs, for a period of 99 years, ending on 23 April 2052. Out of the area of 19413 sq. mtrs. , the built up area is 1048. 60 sq. mtrs. only. The petitioner company made an application to the second respondent, namely, the Delhi Administration, through the Secretary, Land and Building Department, for grant of exemption under Section 20 of the ULCRA. The Lt. Governor of Delhi, respondent No. 1 herein, vide his order dated 26 September 1983, exempted the excess vacant land to the extent of 17096 sq. mtrs forming part of Khasra Nos. 231 to 239 and 240 (min.) on certain terms and conditions. However, petitioner s request for same exemption in respect of Khasra No. 230 was not acceded to on the ground that the said khasra stands notified under Section 6 of the Act. mtrs forming part of Khasra Nos. 231 to 239 and 240 (min.) on certain terms and conditions. However, petitioner s request for same exemption in respect of Khasra No. 230 was not acceded to on the ground that the said khasra stands notified under Section 6 of the Act. On receipt of the rejection letter dated 17 August 1984, the petitioner claims to have made enquiries and discovered that although the said property was included in the notification dated 30 January 1964, issued under Section 6 of the Act but the same was never included in the notification dated 10 November 1960, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner also discovered from the award relating to acquisition of other part of the land in the area, that it was specifically mentioned in the award that field No. 230, measuring 18 Biswas belonging to the petitioner was not covered under notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner drew the attention of the respondents vide letter dated 19 September 1984, and requested them to correct the error; denotify the said land and grant exemption under Section 20 of the ULCRA. Vide their letter dated 15 December 1984, the respondents informed the petitioner that the decision conveyed vide letter dated 17 August 1984 was still holding good. They were directed not to make any further representation on the issue. Hence the present writ petition. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that Khasra No. 230 not having been notified under Section 4, the declaration in respect thereof under Section 6 of the Act is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. It is also claimed that the petitioner have always been in uninterrupted physical possession of the subject land. ( 4 ) BOTH the respondents were duly served, but despite sufficient opportunities, no counter affidavit was filed on their behalf. When the matter came up for final hearing on 14 January 2004, on the request of learned counsel for the respondents, time was granted to them to produce the relevant record containing notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the subject land. Despite it all, respondents have not been able to produce any notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the subject land. Despite it all, respondents have not been able to produce any notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the subject land. Thus, we have no option but to accept the version of the petitioner, set out in the petition, and proceed on the basis that there is no notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of Khasra No. 230. ( 5 ) THUS, the short question for consideration is whether in the absence of notification under Section 4 of the Act, declaration dated 30 January 1964 under Section 6 of the Act can be sustained?. ( 6 ) THE Act is a complete code providing for the procedure and machinery for acquiring the land. Part II of the Act deals with acquisition and the heading of Section 4 is "publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon". Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides 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 or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette in the prescribed manner. Sub-section (2) provides that thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer either generally or specially authorised by such Government in this behalf and for his servants etc. , to inter alia enter upon and survey the land in such locality. The provision shows that the officers and servants and workmen of the Government get the lawful authority to enter upon and survey the land and to do other works only after the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) has been published. Section 5-A enables a person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 (1) to file objection against the acquisition of the land and also for hearing of the objection by the Collector. If the State Government is satisfied, after considering the report, that any particular land is needed for public purposes or for a company, it can make a declaration to that effect under Section 6 of the Act and the said declaration has to be published in the manner prescribed. If the State Government is satisfied, after considering the report, that any particular land is needed for public purposes or for a company, it can make a declaration to that effect under Section 6 of the Act and the said declaration has to be published in the manner prescribed. Thereafter, the Collector is required to issue notice to persons interested under Section 9 (1) of the Act 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 11 provides for making of an award by the Collector of the compensation which should be allowed for the land. Section 16 provides that when the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. The possession of the land can be taken only after the Collector has made an award under Section 11, except in cases of urgency where special power is exercised under Section 17 of the Act. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, as per the procedure prescribed, the process for acquisition has to start with a notification under Section 4 of the Act. Notification under Section 4 is a sine qua non. It is axiomatic that in the absence of notification under Section 4 of the Act, no acquisition proceedings can subsist and all subsequent proceedings, initiated under Sections 6 and 11 of the Act would be illegal and null and void. If there is no notification under Section 4 the Collector can neither enter upon the property for the purposes mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 nor can he hear the objections under Section 5a and submit the report for the issue of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Support to this view is lent by the decisions of this Court in Smt. Angira Devi Gupta and Ors Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi and Ors. AIR 1986 (Delhi) 40 and Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India and Ors. 42 (1990) DLT 384. ( 8 ) IN the present case on respondents own showing notification under Section 4 of the Act has not been issued before issuing the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi and Ors. AIR 1986 (Delhi) 40 and Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India and Ors. 42 (1990) DLT 384. ( 8 ) IN the present case on respondents own showing notification under Section 4 of the Act has not been issued before issuing the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In the absence of the said notification, declaration dated 30 January 1964 would be without jurisdiction and thus, ultra vires. An act or order which is ultra vires is null and void. ( 9 ) IT is true that even in respect of acquisitions based on void orders, a challenge to the acquisition proceedings may not be entertained after the order has been enforced, namely possession of the land is taken and it vests in the State (See: State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs. D. R. Laxmi and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 445 and D. D. A. Vs. Sham Sunder Khanna 2004 (72) DRJ 356 SC]. But in the instant case, in the absence of any material to the contrary, there is no reason not to accept petitioner s specific stand that they have been in uninterrupted physical possession of the subject land. Moreover, even award No. 1820, dated 21 April 1965, placed on record by the petitioner, records that field No. 230, measuring 18 Biswas, is petitioner s property and is not covered by notification under Section 4 of the Act. Obviously, Section 17 of the Act having not been invoked, possession of the subject land could not be taken without an award under Section 11 of the Act. ( 10 ) IN view of the factual scenario, projected above, the conclusion becomes inevitable that the impugned declaration dated 30 January 1964, issued under Section 6 of the Act, is void ab initio. The same is quashed accordingly. ( 11 ) AS regards the prayer in regard to the issue of exemption under Section 20 of the ULCRA, we feel that because of repeal of the said Act with effect from 22 March 1999, it may not be required now but in case it is still needed, the respondents shall take a fresh decision on petitioner s request on its own merits, ignoring the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the same having been quashed. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .