JUDGMENT 1. - The above numbered writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as identical question/questions is/are involved in each of them. 2. The challenge in each of the above writ petitions is to the notification dated February 4, 1991 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated February 5, 1991 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) as well as declaration under Section 5 of the Act published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 4, 1991. 3. Before I take up the facts of the cases, it will be proper to state in the table given below, the names of the petitioners, khasra numbers and the shares of the petitioners in agricultural land in dispute. S.No. Name of petitioner/petitioners and number of the Writ Petition Khasra Number and area of land and the name of village. share petitioner/petitioners. 1. smt. Sudesh Gogia and another SBCW No. 4807/91 58/1, 1 bigha village-Sitapura Teh. Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. Equal share of each of the petitioners. 2. Laxmikant Sharma and another (SBCW No. 5236/1991) Khasra No. 36 1 bhgha 14 biswas Vill. Sitapura Teh. Sanganer (Distt. Jaipur) Laxmikant ⅓ Umakant ⅔ 3. Surendra Kumar Rampuria (SBCW No. 5255/1991) 57 - 1 bigha - 3 biswas Vill. Sitapura Teh. Sanganer(Jaipur) Khatedar 4. Bhagwan Sahai (SBCW No. 5310/1991) Khasra Nos. 37, 41 and 42 - 4 bighas 9 biswas Khatedar 5. Shanti Devi Jalan (SBCW No. 5646/1991) Khasra Nos. 85, 86 (1d Khasra No. 62) 0.66 hectare Vill. Sukhpura Equal share with co-share Ramanand S/o Chiman 6. Smt. Geeta Devi Ghatiwala and another (SBCW No.5665/91) 38, 39 and 40 Village Sitapura. Teh. Sanganer (Jaipur) Measurement-Khasra No. 38- 1 bigha 11 biswas, 39-11 biswas, 40-12 biswas. Each of the writ petitions is by one or other petitioners who had purchased the lands for setting up industries under the registered sale-deeds and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. Teh. Sanganer (Jaipur) Measurement-Khasra No. 38- 1 bigha 11 biswas, 39-11 biswas, 40-12 biswas. Each of the writ petitions is by one or other petitioners who had purchased the lands for setting up industries under the registered sale-deeds and their names were also mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, some or other with or without permission of the concerned authorities have established small scale industries much before the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was issued which, as said earlier, was issued on February 4, 1991 and was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated February 5, 1991 in relation not only to the lands in dispute but also in respect of other agricultural lands measuring more than 715 bighas 6 biswas situated in village Sitapura, Sukhpura and Maharajpura of Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur. The award in relation to the land in dispute was made on August 26, 1991 by the Land Acquisition Officer (SDO Jaipur). It will be seen that though the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, as said earlier, was issued in relation to 715.06 bighas of agricultural land but some other land was also sought to be acquired and so far as acquisition of land for RIICO is concerned, it was confined to 583 bighas, out of which 563.01 bighas of the land was belonging to khatedars and rest was vesting in the State. It will also be seen that for the villages Sitapura and Sukhpura the rate of compensation was Rs. 1.50 lacs per bigha and for village Maharajpura the rate of compensation was Rs. 1 lac per bigha. It will also be seen that the khatedars of land had arrived at the compromise with the Land Acquisition Officer and they have not challenged the award. For the disposal of the above numbered writ petitions, I will give the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5665/91 Smt. Geeta Ghatiwala and another v. State of Rajasthan and others. In the writ petitions take challenge is by the purchasers of the land under the registered We deed on the ground that they have purchased the land for setting up industries and had established the same. 4. Smt. Geeta Ghatiwala the petitioner No. 1 and Sint. Archna Shah, petitioner No. 2, as per their case are co-khatedars of khasra Nos. In the writ petitions take challenge is by the purchasers of the land under the registered We deed on the ground that they have purchased the land for setting up industries and had established the same. 4. Smt. Geeta Ghatiwala the petitioner No. 1 and Sint. Archna Shah, petitioner No. 2, as per their case are co-khatedars of khasra Nos. 38, 39 and 40 situated in village Sitapura Tehsil Sanganer Distt. Jaipur. They had purchased the above khasra numbers from the erstwhile khatedars whose names have been given in para 1(a), (b) and (c) of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, they wanted to start industry of stone polishing and had purchased the land for that purpose. They could not know about the acquisition of the land in dispute earlier and came to know of it on August 24, 1991, when they had filed their objections that they are the owners of the land and should be given a chance of being heard and they should be allowed to file their claims. The award was made without giving an opportunity of hearing to them. They have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land in dispute on the grounds (i) that the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was published in Rajasthan Gazette on February 5, 1991 i.e. before the publication of the same in two newspapers, which was published in Rashtradoot daily on March 21, 1991 and in Navbharat Times daily on March 23, 1991; (ii) the report under Section 5A of the Act was sent to the State Government by the Collector without giving any opportunity of hearing to the objectors, i.e. the petitioners; (iii) the names of the petitioners were not mentioned in the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act; (iv) the notice under Section 9(1) and (3) was premature as it was even before the publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act in the Rajasthan Gazette which was issued on August 15, 1991; (v) the award was made on August 26, 1991 by the Land Acquisition Officer without any prior approval of the State Government as required under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act. 5. 5. As one of the grounds raised is that some of the petitioners were deprived of their right to file their objections under Section 5A of the Act, it is worthwhile to mention that in so far as petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5236/1991 Laxmikant and another v. State and others , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 807/91 Smt. Sudesh Gogiya and another v. State of Rajasthan and others , and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5255/1991 Surendra Kumar Rampuria v. State of Rajasthan and others , are concerned, each of them had filed their objections after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and objections were considered, and the report was made to the State Government and only thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made. Section 5A of the Act vests valuable right in the person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act as being needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose to file objections to the acquisition of the land within 30 days.Therefore, such a person who has filed his objections under Section 5A of the Act within the aforesaid time cannot challenge the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on the ground that there is any defect in the notice as a result of which they were deprived of their right to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. But so far as other petitioners are concerned, in case there is defect in the notification they were deprived of their valuable right to file objections, they can no doubt challenge it. 6. The petition is contested by the RIICO and while traversing the grounds of challenge to the acquisition proceedings raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the RHCO and other respondents have come out with the case that the approval of the State Government was received on August 30, 1991 and there was no need for prior approval.It is also the case of the respondents that the requirement of law is that notice under sub-section (1) of Section 9 can only be issued after the issue of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. According to the respondents most of the land has been acquired on mutual consent of the khatedars. According to the respondents most of the land has been acquired on mutual consent of the khatedars. It is further the case of the respondents that after passing the award, the RIICO has already made the payment of more than Rs. 6,38,00,000/- by way of compensation and the possession of the land except khasra No. 58 in respect of which a stay order has been passed by this Court, has been taken on September 10, 1991. If the acquisition proceedings are now quashed in respect of the land in dispute it will cause irreparable loss to RIICO and will adversely affect the extension of the development of the area in which crores of rupees have already been spent. 7. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is bad in law because it does not give the names of khatedars, and moreso the names of the petitioners, who had purchased the land from the erstwhile khatedars and mutation had taken place in their names much before the said notification was issued.The petitioners claim to have purchased the land in dispute from the erstwhile khatedars and as per para 1 of the writ petition, the land of khasra No. 38 measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas was purchased from Chhaju resident of village Sukhpura under a registered sale deed dated April 12, 1989 and the mutation of which took place on May 31, 1989. Khasra No. 39 measuring 11 biswas was purchased by the petitioners from Ram Karan son of Ladu resident of Village Sukhpura under registered sale deed dated April 12, 1989 and the mutation of which took place on May 31, 1989. Similarly, khasra No. 40 measuring 12 biswas was purchased from Gopal, Kesra and Prabhu sons of Shri Ram Pal residents of Sukhpura under a registered sale deed dated December 13, 1989 and the mutation of which had been granted on May 21, 1990. Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act was dated February 4, 1991 and it was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated February 5, 1991. It will also be seen that so far as publication of the said notification in two other daily newspapers, namely Rashtradoot and Navbharat Times is concerned, it was made on March 21, 1991 and March 23, 1991 in the aforesaid two daily newspapers respectively. It will also be seen that so far as publication of the said notification in two other daily newspapers, namely Rashtradoot and Navbharat Times is concerned, it was made on March 21, 1991 and March 23, 1991 in the aforesaid two daily newspapers respectively. It will be seen from the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, which as said earlier, is dated February 4, 1991 and published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated February 5, 1991 that these three khasra numbers have been mentioned therein. Even it is mentioned that they are situated in village Sitapura. It is also mentioned therein that what is the area of these khasra numbers. Even the names of khatedars have been mentioned, no doubt as said earlier, the land in dispute has been purchased by the petitioners much before the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and the mutation had also taken place in their names. It is also evident that it is not mentioned in the notification that the petitioners were khatedars of the land in dispute and all that was mentioned was the names of earlier khatedars of the land in dispute. The notification clearly mentioned khasra numbers, locality and the area of the land sought to be acquired. The question is if the names of the earlier khatedars were mentioned and the names of the owners of the land who purchased the land were not mentioned whether on that ground the notification can be said to be had in law. A look at Section 4(1) of the Act will show that the locality where the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose or for a company is situated should be mentioned. The requirement is not that the names of the owners of the land should also be mentioned. The purpose of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is that any person interested may file his objections under Section 5A of the Act to the Collector within 30 days of the publication of the notification. The requirement is not that the names of the owners of the land should also be mentioned. The purpose of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is that any person interested may file his objections under Section 5A of the Act to the Collector within 30 days of the publication of the notification. It will further be seen that it is for that purpose that the requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 4 is that the notification should not only be published in the official gazette but it should also be published in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of which atleast one shall be in the regional language. It is also required that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient place in the said locality. If the publication of the notification is as provided in Section 4(1) of the Act, it will give sufficient notice to the persons interested to file objections under Section 5A of the Act and the requirement of the law is not that the names of the owners should also be mentioned. Therefore, if the names of the owners are not mentioned and sufficient particulars of the land needed or likely to be needed for public purpose or for a company are given in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act which is issued as provided therein, it will give sufficient notice to the persons interested to enable them to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. In my opinion, it is not necessary that in the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act the names of the owners should also be given. In the instant case no doubt, as said earlier the names of the petitioners were not mentioned, though they had purchased the land in dispute from the earlier khatedars, but the names of the earlier khatedars were given as owners and other particulars, namely khasra numbers, area, locality etc. were also given. The said particulars were sufficient to give notice, moreso, after publication had taken place in all the modes provided under section 4(1) of the Act to enable the person interested to file their objections under Section 5A of the Act, and so far as the petitioners are concerned, they did file their objections. were also given. The said particulars were sufficient to give notice, moreso, after publication had taken place in all the modes provided under section 4(1) of the Act to enable the person interested to file their objections under Section 5A of the Act, and so far as the petitioners are concerned, they did file their objections. In my opinion, even if their names are not mentioned and if other particulars, such as locality, area, khasra numbers etc. are given, there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and on that count the notification cannot be challenged. There can be no dispute that publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act in all the modes provided therein is a mandatory requirement, though under certain circumstances the publication of the same in the official gazette alone is presumed to be notice to all concerned, but as prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act in addition to publication of the notification in the official gazette it must also be published in two newspapers atleast one of which should be in regional language and the Collector must cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. As said earlier, once the compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act takes place, it will give sufficient notice to the persons interested to file their objections in exercise of their statutory right conferred on them under Section 5A of the Act. Merely, because the names of the owners are not mentioned or their names are wrongly mentioned, if the locality where the land is situated which is sought to be acquired and the area boundries etc. if necessary, are mentioned, giving particulars to the persons interested to file their objections and the requirement of law being not that the notification must contain the names of the owners the absence of the names of the owners in the notification or incorrect mentioning thereof or not giving proper description of the property, in my opinion will not make any difference. In case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. In case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shari and others, 1992 LACC-244 , the Apex Court in para 9 has dealt with the object of issuing notification under sub-section(1) of Section 4 of the Act and said that it is two fold, first-it is a public announcement by the Government and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified, therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the Government for the `public purpose' mentioned therein, and secondly, it authorises the departmental officer or officers of the local authority, as the case may be, to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The court further said that the notification is required to give with sufficient clarity not only the `public purpose' for which the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the 'locality' where the land is situate with as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to enable the interested persons to know as to which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing objections etc. 8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act is dated February 4,1991 and was published in the Rajasthan Gezette dated February 5,1991 and it was published in daily Rashtradoot dated March 21,1991 and in daily Navbharat Times dated March 23,1991 and he contends that the publication of the said notification in official gazette being earlier than in the news papers, it is invalid. I find no substance in it. The reason is that by the amendment of sub-section (1) of Section 4 in 1984 it has been provided that the last of the dates of publication i.e. in the Rajasthan Gazette and the news papers shall be the date of publication of notification. Therefore, the date when the publication in the last mode takes place will be the date of publication and the period of 30 days to enable the person interested to file his objection will commence from that date. Therefore, the date when the publication in the last mode takes place will be the date of publication and the period of 30 days to enable the person interested to file his objection will commence from that date. In the case of M/s Garg Farms, Delhi and others v. State of UP and others, AIR 1990 Allahabad -1 , a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court said that the addition of words `last of such dates' in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act is not without significance and these words are explicit and unambiguous. They obviously mean whichever is the last of the dates of publication of the notification or giving of public notice shall be treated as the date of publication of the notification. The court further said that strict adherence to the sequence in which the modes of publication appear in Section 4(1) was wholly discounted by the language employed by the lawmakers vide the words quoted earlier. I am of the opinion that this argument has no force. If despite the publication of the notification in all the three modes within thirty days thereof if any person did not file his objection under Section 5A of the Act, they cannot be allowed to challenge the notification. As said earlier, some of the petitioners filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act, they were considered and a report was made to the State Government by the Collector. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the award was made without previous approval of the State Government. Learned counsel in this connection has referred to the first proviso to Section 11 of the Act which lays down that no award shall be made by the Collector under sub-section(1) of Section 11 without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. Second proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 11 of the Act provides that it shall be competent for the State Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the State Government may specify in this behalf. Second proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 11 of the Act provides that it shall be competent for the State Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the State Government may specify in this behalf. No doubt the word `shall' has been used in the first proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 11 of the Act, but no penal consequences have been provided and it is not said what will happen if the award is made by the Collector without previous approval of the State Government. The said proviso was inserted by Act No. 68 of 1984(Sec.8). It will be seen that there are State amendments in Section 11 of the Act and an identical provision existed about the previous approval of the State Government and it will also be seen that under Section 3 of the Bombay Act (XXXV of 1953) and a proviso identical to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 was added by the proviso that no award allowing compensation exceeding such amount as the State Government may notify may be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the State Government. It will be seen that it is between the Collector and the State Government whether or not the approval for making award under sub-section (1) of Section 11 should or should not be taken and the third party cannot challenge the award on the ground that no previous approval of the State Government was taken. In the case of Ram Jiyawan v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1992 LACC 385 the Allahabad High Court has taken a similar view and in some other cases though a contrary view has also been taken and with due respect I agree with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court and I am of the opinion that the first proviso to Section 11(1) is directory and not mandatory and even if previous approval of the State Government is not taken it will not invalidate the award. 10. Yet another argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no personal hearing was given. According to the learned counsel under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act, the opportunity of being heard in person or by a pleader authorised by the person is necessary. 10. Yet another argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no personal hearing was given. According to the learned counsel under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act, the opportunity of being heard in person or by a pleader authorised by the person is necessary. I have gone through relevant file of the RIICO and it will appear that the petitioner was represented by one Saket Pareek and in the margin of the order-sheet there is signature of Saket Pareek. Thus, there is compliance of Section 5A(2) of the Act and it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners or to other petitioners who had filed their objections. In so far as those who have not filed their objections are concerned, they cannot complain that no opportunity of hearing was given to them. 11. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice under section 9(1) and (3) of the Act was given before the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act is though dated July 4, 1991 but was published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated August 6, 1991. It will be seen from the file No. F. (6) 89/LAO/JPR (H part) of the Land Acquisition Officer (BDO) Jaipur that so far as khasra No. 38, 39 and 40 of the petitioners are concerned, the notice was issued to the Erstwhile Khatedars, whose names have been given in the earlier part of this order and from whom the petitioners have purchased the lands in dispute before the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act had been published. The notice appears to have been served after August 3, 1991. It can therefore be said that the notice under Sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 9 of the Act was issued before the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on August 6, 1991 and in the reply filed by the respondent RUCO this fact has not been disputed and it can be said that even if the notice under sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 9 of the Act was issued before the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, it cannot invalidate the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners have denied that any notice was given to them under Section 9(1) and (3) and even assuming that the aforesaid provision is not mandatory in view of the various decisions cited at the Bar. The question is as to whether the Collector as Land Acquisition Officer had any jurisdiction to issue the notice before the declaration under Section 6 of the Act ? The question further is as to whether if the declaration has not been published as required under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, what is the effect of it is One of the grounds taken by the petitioners is that the publication of the notice is not as required under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. A look at pars 8(L) of the writ petition will show that it has been mentioned therein that declaration under Section 6 was published in daily news paper on August 3, 1991 (Annr. 10), but was not published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. But even then the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 9(1) and (3) of the Act to various khatedars earlier to it. In reply to the aforesaid para of the writ petition the respondents have not disputed the contents of para 3(L) and so far as para 3(M) is concerned the respondents have come out with the case that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. They have also said that the notice under sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 9 of the Act was not premature. According to the respondents as per their reply to the contents of para 3 of the writ petition the declaration under Section 6 was published in two daily newspapers and it was also published in benificial gazette on August 15, 1991. It is also the case of the respondents that publication of the substance of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also made at several places and was also served. A perusal of the rile to which reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order will show that there was compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act in so far as publication of declaration is concerned. A perusal of the rile to which reference has already been made in the earlier part of this order will show that there was compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act in so far as publication of declaration is concerned. It will be seen from a bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act that a declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 is required to be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of which one is to be in regional language and the Collector is required to cause publication of the substance of such declaration to be given at the convenient places in the said locality as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. But the question is as to whether, as said earlier, because the notice under Section 9(1) and (3) was issued on August 3, 1991 and served on the petitioners immediately thereafter, but because August 15, 1991 when the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act was published, can it be said that the notice under sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 9 of the Act was premature ? The question further is that assuming that no personal notice was served on the petitioners was given to the petitioners and must have been given in the names of earlier khatedars whether it was necessary to give a personal notice and whether giving personal notice under Section 9(1) of the Act is mandatory and if it is not given what is its effect ? A look at the relevant provisions of the Act is necessary and it will be seen from a perusal of Sections 5A, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act that the compliance was to be in the sequence in which the sections have been given in the Act. A look at the relevant provisions of the Act is necessary and it will be seen from a perusal of Sections 5A, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act that the compliance was to be in the sequence in which the sections have been given in the Act. A declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act can only be made by the State Government after considering the report, if any, made under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act and if the State Government is satisfied that any land is needed for public purpose and therefore, the report under section 5A(2) of the Act is a condition precedent that any land is needed for public purpose and only thereafter the declaration under Section 6 of the Act can be made. Under Section 7 only after the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act as aforesaid that the land is needed for public purpose or for a company, the State Government or some officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf can direct the Collector to take order for the acquisition of the land and only thereafter, as provided in Section 8 of the Act, the Collector shall cause the land (unless it has been already marked out under Section 4) to be marked out and if no plan is made the plan shall be made. Under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act it is provided that the Collector shall then cause the public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, 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. So far as personal notice as required under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act is concerned, it has been held by the courts that the said provision is directory and not mandatory despite the word 'shall' has been used therein. So far as personal notice as required under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act is concerned, it has been held by the courts that the said provision is directory and not mandatory despite the word 'shall' has been used therein. In the case of Lakhbir Chand v. Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi AIR 1979 Delhi-53 , dealing with sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act the Delhi High Court said that : "The object in enacting sub-s. (3) of S. 9 is to afford to the persons occupying the land or interested in it to make a claim for compensation so that the Collector may decide the compensation payable to them. Thus in response to the notice under S. 9(3), the only matter which can be agitated before the Collector by any persons interested relates more or less to the question of compensation in respect of the land sought to be acquired. After the Collector has taken the orders for the acquisition of land under S. 7, the acquisition is complete except for the determination and apportionment of the compensation. If notices under Sections 9(3) or 10(1) are not served, or defective notices are served and the award is made, the right of the persons interested are not prejudiced in the matter of compensation." The court therefore held the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act as directory and not mandatory. A similar view has been taken in the case of State of Raj. and others v. Smt. Sugandhi and others, AIR 1980 MP 19 , P.K. Sheikh v. State of West Bengal and ors. AIR 1976 Cal. 149 , and Collector of Cuttack v. Mayadhar Sahu, AIR 1973 Orissa 173. 12. In my opinion a reading of the aforesaid provisions, namely Section 5A, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act will leave no doubt that a notice under Section 9('-) as well as Section 9(3) of the Act can only be given after the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act is made and is published as required under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. A notice under Section 9(1) and (3) of the Act cannot precede the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. A notice under Section 9(1) and (3) of the Act cannot precede the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The reason is that as provided under Section 7 of the Act only after any land shall have been declared under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act as needed for public purpose or for a company, the State Government or some other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, can direct the Collector to take the order for acquisition of the land and any action by the Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 9 or sub-section (3) of Section 9 shall not only be premature but shall also be without jurisdiction because without declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act the Collector cannot be directed by the State Government or any other officer authorised by it in this behalf to take the order for the acquisition of land. 13. It has already been said in the earlier part of this order that the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act that any land is needed for public purpose or is likely to be needed for public purpose has to be given in the similar manner as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act i.e. in the official gazette and also in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated, of which atleast one should be in the regional language and the Collector is also to cause the public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Not only this, the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, shall be the date of the publication of the said notification. Only after the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act is published as required by sub-section (2) of Section 6, the State Government or some other officer authorised by it in this behalf, shall direct the Collector to take order for the acquisition of land. Only after the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act is published as required by sub-section (2) of Section 6, the State Government or some other officer authorised by it in this behalf, shall direct the Collector to take order for the acquisition of land. Therefore, before the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act as aforesaid which shall be taken to have been published on August 15, 1991, no notice under Section 9(1) or (3) of the Act could have been issued and the same is without jurisdiction. I am of the opinion that the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under sub-sections (1) or (3) of Section 9 of the Act. Even the Delhi High Court in the case of Lakhbir Chand (supra) said that a personal notice under Section 9(3) of the Act is not mandatory. In my opinion, because the notice under sub-section (1) or (3) of Section 9 of the Act was issued even before a declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 was made, the same was without jurisdiction as by then the Collector had not been directed by the State Government or by some other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government to take the order for the acquisition of land. Any action taken by him before such an order for acquisition of land was without jurisdiction. 14. It was contended by the learned counsel for RIICO that the RIICO has already paid the compensation to most of the khatedars and it has paid crores of rupees and according to the learned counsel it will frustrate the entire scheme of RIICO. In my opinion, this cannot be the relevant circumstance and the reason is that one can only be deprived of his properties strictly in accordance with law. 15. In my opinion, this cannot be the relevant circumstance and the reason is that one can only be deprived of his properties strictly in accordance with law. 15. Before parting with, I would like to observe that not only in these cases but also in other case it has come to the notice of the court that strict compliance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not being made, may be because of inefficiency of the those who are entrusted with the land acquisition proceedings or for some other unknown reasons, but it can be said that in some ,cases even without notification under sub-section (9) of Section 4 of the Act, which is a condition precedent, and from which the land acquisition proceedings start, declaration under Section 6 is made, the Government must seriously consider conferring powers of Land Acquisition Officer/Collector on trained persons and the persons who are entrusted such work or are conferred with such power must care to go through the provisions of relevant law. If a care would have been taken in these cases to issue a notice under Section 9(1) and (3) only after the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the result of these cases would have been otherwise. 16. Consequently, I hereby allow these writ petitions and hold that so far as the lands in dispute, the details of which have been given in the table in the earlier part of this order are concerned, the acquisition of the land is without jurisdiction. The award only to the extent of land in dispute is hereby quashed. Costs made easy.Writ Petitions Allowed. *******