JUDGMENT 1. 1. In assailing the Award dated 31.3.1989 (Annexure-3) made under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (for short the 'Central Act'), learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:- (i) that there was non-compliance of Section 41,51 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short 'Rajasthan Act'); (ii) that when the Central Act was extended to the State w. e. f. 24th September 1984, notification under section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Act was not saved and therefore, all the proceedings are without jurisdiction; and (iii) that the Land Acquisition Officer who gave the award (Anx. 3) had not been appointed under section 3(c) of the Central Act and therefore, the Award given by him is without jurisdiction. 2. A notification under section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Act was issued on 11th June, 1986. Thereafter, because land was required for construction of a bye-pass in Zone 'C', Ajmer Road, Jaipur National Highway No. 8. Being a case of emergency the State Government issued a notification dated 22.9.1986 which was published in Gazette dated October 9, 1986. The said notification was issued under section 17(4) of the Rajasthan Act read with Section 6 of the said Act and authorised the Land Acquisition Officer to take possession of the land after 15 days of the publication of the afore- said notification. In the aforesaid notification issued under section 17(4) read with Section 6 of the Rajasthan Act, the provisions of Section 5A of the Rajasthan Act were dispensed with. Objections were filed to the notice issued under section 9(1) and 9(3) and after considering the objections, the Award (Annexure-3) dated 31.3.89 was made. 3. It may be stated at the outset that so far as the objection that there was non-compliance of Section 4(5) of the Act is concerned, firstly that objection does not appear to have been taken even in the objections which were filed after receipt of notice u.'s 9(1) of the Act. Secondly the said notification under section 4(I) of the Act was issued as far back as 11.6.86 and any objection in respect of non-compliance, even if there is any. of sub-sec. Secondly the said notification under section 4(I) of the Act was issued as far back as 11.6.86 and any objection in respect of non-compliance, even if there is any. of sub-sec. (5) of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Act cannot be allowed to be taken if there was any non-compliance of Section 4(5) of the Rajasthan Act, it was expected that an objection to that effect would have been taken at the time of filing the objections which the petitioners are said to have filed, to the notice under section 9 of the Rajasthan to Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on AIR 1971 P&H 139 in support of his contention that even after the award is made, the challenge to the award can be made on the ground of non-compliance of Section 4(l) or Section 5(A) of the Rajasthan Act or the Central Act, as the case may be. It was a case of different facts, where no particulars of the land sought to be acquired were given and therefore. the owners were unable to file objections under section 5A. That case is not relevant to the facts of the present case. 4. Coming to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Central Act was extended to the State of Rajasthan on 24-9-84 and notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Act or proceedings under section 4 (5) were not saved, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the case of Banwarilal v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 1327/87) decided on 4-1-89 to which I was, a party. It may be stated that in the aforesaid case the Award had net teen made and it was the stage prior to the stage of making of the Award that the petitioner had moved this court. The question always arises that if a party has not taken his objections to the illegality or irregularity in the notification under section 4 (1 ) or objections in respect to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 4 (5) of the Rajasthan Act and has taken part in the proceedings which have culminated into an Award, whether the challenge to the notification under section 4(l) or non- compliance of the provisions of Section 4 (5) of the Rajasthan Act should be entertained or not. It is my opinion that if a party sleeps over the matter for a period of three years, as in the present case ; takes part in the proceedings ; does not challenge the action before the Land Acquisition Officer that there has been non- compliance of section 4 (1) or 4 (5) of the Rajasthan Act ; takes a chance and if the Award is made against him, then such a party cannot be allowed to challenge the illegality even if there is any, in the notification under section 4 (1) or there has been non-compliance of Section 4 (5) of the Act. That apart, in the aforesaid case of Banwari Lal this court had made an observation that "there is no provision under sub- Section 4 of Section 56 of the Act which saves a notice issued under section 4 (1). It does net provide for any notice and its legality will not be questioned on the ground that it was not issued in terms of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Central Act. But it will have to be seen whether a notice was issued under section 4 (1) of the State Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Central Act. The above observations are only obiter and this court was not called upon to decide the controversy in that case as to whether any notification issued under section 4 (1) of the State Act is saved or not. Section 56 contains provision consequential to the extension of the Central Act to the State of Rajasthan. Sub-section (1) provides that consequent on the Central Act having been extended to the State on the 24th day of September, 1984 hereinafter referred to as the date of extension, the Rajasthan Act shall be deemed to have been repealed on the date of extension. Sub-section (1) provides that consequent on the Central Act having been extended to the State on the 24th day of September, 1984 hereinafter referred to as the date of extension, the Rajasthan Act shall be deemed to have been repealed on the date of extension. Sub-sect ion (2) of Section 56 of the Central Act is as under:- "(2) Where, in any proceedings under the State Act pending on the date of extension, the State Government, the Collector or the Court has on or after the said date and before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 done anything taken any action or made any order which is at variance with that as is provided in this Act, such action, thing or order shall, subject to the other provisions of this section be deemed to have been done taken or made under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and such proceedings shall not be re-opened or reviewed or liable b be challenged on the ground of not being in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 5. In my opinion. the aforesaid sub-section (2) of Section 56 as introduced in the Central Act by the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 will not only save even a notification issued under section 4 (1) of the State Act even if it is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Central Act but even will save an appointment of the officer made under the State Act and therefore, in relation to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it can be said that the Land Acquisition Officer who was appointed under the State Act will continue to be Land Acquisition Officer ; and will come within the definition of -Collector' as mentioned in Section 3 (c) of the Central Act. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a notification under section 4 (1) of the State Act is not saved and that the proceedings which have culminated in the passing of the Award, are not saved, has no force. 6. Coming to the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the-C.and Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to make an Award. Partly, this submission has also been dealt with in the earlier part of this order. 7. 6. Coming to the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the-C.and Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to make an Award. Partly, this submission has also been dealt with in the earlier part of this order. 7. Under section 3 (c) of the Central Act, the expression -Collector' means the Collector of a District, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer comes within the expression 'Collector' as given under section 3 (c) of the said Act. But his contention is that only such person who has been appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of the Collector by the Central Act, could come within the expression 'Collector' and as the Land Acquisition Officer was not so appointed, the award given by him is without jurisdiction. I have already referred to sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Central Act as introduced in (sic by) the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 and at the cost of repetition, it may be stated that it saves actions of the State Government, in any proceedings, under the State Act, pending on the date of the extension of the Central Act to the State or even actions of the State Government taken before the coming into force of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act which as per sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 shall be deemed to have come into force on 3-1-1987. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer who was appointed under section 3 (c) of the said Act will be deemed to have been appointed tinder the Central Act and any Award made by him cannot be without jurisdiction. 8. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Section 11-A of the Central Act, the Award could not have been made on 31-3-89 and could have only been made on or before 24th September, 1986 or 1988. It may be stated that this contention ha; also no force because sub-sec. 8. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Section 11-A of the Central Act, the Award could not have been made on 31-3-89 and could have only been made on or before 24th September, 1986 or 1988. It may be stated that this contention ha; also no force because sub-sec. (4) of Section 56 of the Central Act as introduced by the aforesaid Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987 clearly provides that a notification under section 6 and the award ups 1l-A of the Central Act, as the case may be, could have been made within one year and two years respectively after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987. u/ 6 could have been published upto 2-1-1988 made within two years thereafter. In other words, the notification and the award could have been made within two years thereafter. 9. I find do merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******