JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J.- By a notification dated 27th November 1970 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act certain plots of village Dhandara Pargana Roorkee district Saharanpur were sought to be acquired. The purpose mentioned in the notification was for making trenching ground for preparing compost manure. The notification called upon the persons interested in the land to file their objections to the acquisition of the land. Petitioner No. 1 in writ Petition No. 6869 of 1974 filed an objection to the effect that there was no plot no. 2, Rule 55-A as shown in the schedule to the notification. Petitioner No. 2 in the aforesaid petition and the petitioners in writ petition No. 7301 of 1974, who claimed to be tenants of plot nos. 358 and 360, filed separate objections. State Government issued a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act on 24.4.1972. In this notification instead of plot no 355-A plot no. 355 having an area 5 Bigha 6 Biswa was notified. To that extent the original notification dated 27.11.1970 was corrected. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.8.1972. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioners was that after they had filed their objections no opportunity was afforded to them to be heard in support of their objections. It was alleged that notice as required under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act was not issued to them. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been clarified that the notification dated 24.4.1972 in respect of plot no. 355 was issued as a result of the objection filed by petitioner no. 1 in Writ Petition No. 6869 of 1974. It has also been averred that after receiving these objections of the petitioners, notices under Section 9 (3) of the Act were issued to them on 17th February, 1971 to appear before the Collector on 20th March, 1971. These notices were served on the petitioners, but in spite of notice none of them appeared on the date fixed. These assertions have not been contreverted by the petitioner. Today the petitioners sought permission to file rejoinder affidavits. The counter affidavit was filed as far back as 18th April, 1977. We are not inclined to allow the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavits after a lapse of more than four years. 3. These assertions have not been contreverted by the petitioner. Today the petitioners sought permission to file rejoinder affidavits. The counter affidavit was filed as far back as 18th April, 1977. We are not inclined to allow the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavits after a lapse of more than four years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the impugned notification were illegal and invalid, as they had not been issued by the appropriate Government. According to the petitioners since the purpose was for making trenching ground for the Armed Forces, appropriate Government which could issue the notifications was the Central Government. The State Government could nor issue the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and consequently they were invalid. This point has not been taken in the writ petitions. On 6th July, 1981 when the Petition came up for hearing before us we adjourned the hearing and gave an opportunity to the petitioners to make an application for amendment of the petition. No application for amendment of the petition has been made. Since the point relating to the competence of the State Government to issue the impugned notifications has not been raised in the petition, we are not inclined to allow this point to be urged at this stage of the case. 4. As noted earlier the petitioners did file their objections in response to the notice under Section 5-A of the Act, but they failed to appear before the Collector and substantiate the objections. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued after considering the objections filed by the petitioners. In our opinion, the petitioners have filed to make out a case for quashing the acquisitions proceeding and the notifications issued under the Act. 5. The petitions have no merits and are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.