notices were sent. The impugned order has protected the site for the future by issuing suitable directions. However, it has also called upon a plan to be drawn up for future excavations as the m atter cannot be left in lim bo for years together affecting rights of owners. Again, over this aspect, there can be no quibble. The learned single Judge has, in fact, not quashed the im pugned notices, but has only suspended their operation by observing that decision to excavate would in turn involve duty to acquire land under Section 20 of the said Act so that the owners are compensated monetarily. It is not case of the appellant that they have drawn up a schem e of excavation. On the other hand, what is sought to be principally contended before us is that there is no question of acquiring the land under Section 20 of the said Act, as it already vests in the Central Governm ent. On being asked to point out as to where this aspect has been dealt with, i.e., the issue of title whether it vests with Central Governm ent or with private individuals, learned counsel concedes that there is no discussion in the im pugned order.
