JUDGMENT 1. All these writ petitions arise out of the proceedings for acquisition of land taken by the State Government in respect of the scheme popularly known as Jawahar Nagar Yojna in Bharatpur. Since common questions of law have been raised it will be appropriate to decide these petitions by a common order. 2. In Writ Petition No. 5434/90 filed by Damodar Lal Sharma and 10 others it has been stated that the petitioners purchased land falling in khasra No. 815 (new Khasra No. 4483), Khasra No. 822 (new khasra No. 4484) and Khasra No.814 (4482). Names of the petitioners were entered in the revenue record and mutations were made in their names. Purchase had been made by them by registered sale deed dated, 23.4.82. Petitioners- claimed that they deposited conversion charges in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Registration of Agricultural Land for Residential, Commercial Purposes in Urban Area) Rules, 1981. They had also submitted lay out plan before the District Level Committee and it was approved on 18.1.85. After this had been done, the District Level Committee constituted for conversion of land took a decision in its meeting dated 11.6.86 that the petitioners be asked to surrender their land situated in scheme No. 8 and that they will be allotted plots of the same size on priority basis. According to the petitioners, they submitted joint applications to the urban Improvement Trust for regularisation and allotment of land for residential purposes. In its meeting held on 27.7.89 the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur, took a decision that the lands on which construction has already been made may be exempted from acquisition because it will not be justified to destroy the constructed houses. On that basis a decision was taken that those persons who had deposited 80% of the conversion charges should be given exemption from acquisition. In the meanwhile, notices for acquisition of the land were issued under section-4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act on 9.7.87. A declaration was also issued on 30.7.88 and then a notice dated, 18.11.88 was issued under section 9. Petitioners submitted application before the Land' Acquisition Officer and protested against the acquisition of land. However, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated, 28.7.90. 3. A declaration was also issued on 30.7.88 and then a notice dated, 18.11.88 was issued under section 9. Petitioners submitted application before the Land' Acquisition Officer and protested against the acquisition of land. However, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated, 28.7.90. 3. Petitioners have challenged the award on the ground that the same has been made in contravention of the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act in as much as, the award is not in consonance with the period specified in section 11(1). Petitioners have also questioned the award on the ground that once a policy decision has been taken to regularise their land, it is not open to the Urban Improvement Trust to take possession of the land. Petitioners have also pleaded that number of other plots falling within the scheme have been left out but the petitioners have been picked up for this discriminatory treatment. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have not filed any reply to the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 has in its reply stated that it has nothing to do with the proceedings of conversion of land taken by the petitioners or deposit of the conversion charges by the petitioners. After regular acquisition proceedings, the District Level Committee had in its meeting dated, 11.6.86 decided to direct the land holders to surrender the lands and they were assured of residential plots in some other area. The petitioners did not surrender their lands. According to the respondent No. 3 no order for conversion of the land has been issued in favour of the petitioners and in the meeting of the district level committee held on 13.9.89 it was finally decided that only those lands would be exempted from acquisition proceedings which already stood converted. Thus, earlier resolution dated, 27.1.89 stands modified. It has been asserted by the respondent No. 3 that the Land Acquisition Officer can pass award without obtaining prior approval of the Government and in the present case, the Authorised Officer has directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award without waiting for the approval of the Government . Respondent No. 3 has then stated that declaration under Section 6 was issued on 30.6.88 and the award for the second phase was made on 28.7.90. Therefore, the award has been made within the statutory period specified in proviso to Section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent No. 3 has then stated that declaration under Section 6 was issued on 30.6.88 and the award for the second phase was made on 28.7.90. Therefore, the award has been made within the statutory period specified in proviso to Section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent No. 3 has also pleaded that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award after taking into consideration all the provisions of law and the facts which were placed before him. In additional pleas the respondent No. 3 has asserted that the writ petition has been filed with the object of negating the scheme framed by the Urban Improvement Trust for providing housing facilities to thousands of homeless citizens of Bharatpur. Huge amount of loan has been given by HUDCO. This amount was to be disbursed towards compensation of the land acquired but on account of the challenge made by the petitioner it has not been possible to complete the acquisition. This has resulted in heavy burden on the Urban Improvement Trust. Another additional plea raised by the respondent No. 3 is that the petitioner should have raised all the objections before the District Judge, Bharatpur by way of reference proceedings and in any case, during the pendency of the reference proceedings the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the award. 5. In their rejoinder, the petitioners have stated that the averments made by the Urban Improvement Trust in its reply to the effect that they had not surrendered their rights in the land is incorrect. In fact, the petitioners had filed application dated, 5.8.86 (annex.15) for surrender of their land. This very fact was stated before the Land Acquisition Officer vide application dated, 19.10.87. Relying on the decision dated, 27.1.89 of the District Level Committee the petitioners have reiterated that by virtue of that order their land stood converted and the subsequent decision taken by the District Level Committee cannot result in reopening of the earlier decision. Petitioners have denied the statement made in the reply to the effect that the award has been approved by the State Government. Petitioners have reiterated that the award has not been made within two years of the issue of the declaration and therefore, it is without jurisdiction. 6. Petitioners have denied the statement made in the reply to the effect that the award has been approved by the State Government. Petitioners have reiterated that the award has not been made within two years of the issue of the declaration and therefore, it is without jurisdiction. 6. It has also been stated by the petitioner that as late as on 14.2.91 the State Government has passed order under section-48 of the Land Acquisition Act for de-acquisition of a portion of the land acquired for respondent No. 3. 7. In writ petition No. 1839/91, petitioners, Har Narain Singh, Vijay Bhan Singh and Pratap Singh have stated that they are sons of Babu Lal Mali who was recorded khatedar tenant of the land bearing Khasra No. 820 and 821 (new khasra No. 4502) with an area of 16 Biswa and 9 Biswa respectively. Their father died on 14.2.86. Their names have been recorded as khatedar tenants and they have constructed houses over this land. They are residing in the said house. Respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings for acquisition of the land and at its instance the Government issued notification dated, 30.4.87 which came to be published in Rajasthan Gazette dated, 9.7.87. Th land was sought to be acquired for scheme No. 8. The State Government issued a separate notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 declaring that the lands mentioned therein are required for the public purpose, namely, scheme No. 8. Notification dated , 29.7.88 issued under Section 6 came to be published in gazetted dated 30th July 1988. Thereafter, notices under section 9 have been issued. On 28.7.90 the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award. According to the petitioners award has been made by the Land Acquisition Officer without previous approval of the Government. Petitioners filed a civil suit against the acquisition proceedings. They later on withdrew it on 21.2.91 with liberty to file fresh one. 8. Apart from raising other points which have been raised in writ petition No. 5434/90 petitioners have pleaded that the proceedings of acquisition in respect of their land has been taken against dead person namely Shri Babu Lal, father of the petitioners. Their plea is that even though their names have been recorded in the revenue records no notice was given to them. Their plea is that even though their names have been recorded in the revenue records no notice was given to them. They have also questioned the acquisition proceedings by asserting that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 were not issued in accordance with law. Further case of the petitioners is that as they had constructed houses before coming into force of the conversion rules. After the rules came into force their father deposited conversion charges in pursuance of notice dated, 12.3.92. Receipt of the deposit has been filed as Annexure-6. On the basis of these averments the petitioners have stated that acquisition of their property is wholly arbitrary and uncalled for. 9. In reply, the respondent No. 3 has stated that the fact regarding death of Babu Lal Mali is not within the knowledge of the Urban Improvement Trust. No record is available regarding Khasra Nos. 820-821. However, Khasra No. 4052 is duly recorded in the revenue records. According to the respondent No. 3 land still stands in the name of Babu Lal. Notice under section 9 was issued in the name of Shri Babu Lal on 7.12.88. when the process server Shri Pooran Chand had gone on the spot to get the notices served, he was informed by the persons available on the spot that Babu Lal had gone out. Process server affixed a copy of the notice outside the residential house of Babu Lal Mali. Thereafter, all the three petitioners appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on 7.1.89. A Vakalatnama was filed on their behalf by Advocates S/Shri Bhola Singh and Vinod Kumar. In that Vakalatnama the number and date of the notice issued under section 9 has been mentioned and this shows that the petitioner had full knowledge of the impugned acquisition proceedings. 10. In writ petition No. 1975/91, petitioner Kanhaiya Lal has stated that he is a resident of Bharatpur. He holds land measuring 1 Bigha and 5 Bighas respectively in Khasra Nos. 4486 and 4501. This land is an agricultural cum-abadi land. He is an agriculturist by profession and is holding the aforesaid lands for the past several years. His house is situated in agricultural land his family members are living there. He has been growing vegetables and berry in these two lands. Fruits and other trees are also standing on the land. He does not have any other house in Bharatpur. He. His house is situated in agricultural land his family members are living there. He has been growing vegetables and berry in these two lands. Fruits and other trees are also standing on the land. He does not have any other house in Bharatpur. He. has referred to notification dated, 3.4.87 issued under section-52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (published in Rajasthan Gazette dated, 9.7.87) for acquisition of land for the avowed purpose of scheme No. 8. This was followed by notification dated, 29.7.88 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer gave award for the acquired land in two phases. In the first phase he gave award on 15.9.89 in respect of the land situated on the eastern side of the road. For the Land situated on the western side of the road award has been given on 28.7.90 and it is by this award that the lands of the petitioner hare covered. Petitioner has stated that Scheme No. 8 is popularly known as Jawahar Nagar Yojna and the total land sought to be acquired is approximately 300 Bighas near national park popularly known as Ghana Birds Sanctuary. Petitioner filed appeal against the award which came to be registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 403/90. However, the same was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that it was not maintainable. 11. In writ petition No. 2126/91 the petitioner Kamal has claimed himself to be holder of agricultural land Khasra No. 4480 measuring 1 Bigha 2 Biswas. He is an agriculturist by profession and has a house over a portion of this land wherein he and other family members live. On this land there are number of fruit trees. Petitioner has stated that he is having no other residential house either in the city of Bharatpur or elsewhere. He has stated that apart from agriculture he is having a dairy over this land. He has referred to the Notification dated, 3rd April 1987 published in Rajasthan Gazettee dated, 9th July 1987 under Section 52(2) of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959. By this Notification, his land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of scheme No. 8. Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act was amended in the year 1987 and the proceedings which were initiated prior to that amendment treated to be proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By this Notification, his land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of scheme No. 8. Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act was amended in the year 1987 and the proceedings which were initiated prior to that amendment treated to be proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, Notification dated, 29th July 1988 was issued under section 6 of the Central Act read with section 52 of 1959 Act. Other facts mentioned in this writ petition are similar to those mentioned in writ petition No. 1975 of 1991, Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan and therefore, reference to these facts is not being made. Reply has been filed by respondent No. 3 and this reply is also on the same lines on which reply to writ petition No. 1975/91 has been filed. For this reason, a detailed reference to the averments made in this reply is not being made. 12. Writ petition No. 2370/91 has been jointly filed by Amar Singh and Gopal Singh. These petitioners have pleaded that they are having part of the land covered by Khasras Nos. 4436, 4438, 4442, 4443, 4459 to 4462. These lands are jointly held by the petitioners and they are situated on the outskirts of the city of Jaipur on the Jaipur-Agra highway. Total area of the land is 2 hectares and 22 acres. Petitioners are agriculturist by profession. They are carrying on agriculture and other allied operations over the land. They have pucca residential houses over the land. There also exists pucca tube-well, pucca shed for cattles and pucca godowns for storage of seeds, agricultural produce and implements. They have also stated that varieties of fruit trees and other trees are being grown over this land. One portion of the land has been utilised for Samadhis of the ancestors of the petitioners. Petitioners have also stated that they are growing high quality seeds for sale to the Food Corporation of India. They have also a dairy over the land. Other facts mentioned in this writ petition as well as the reply are identical to those mentioned in writ petition No. 1975/91 and therefore, detailed reference is not being made to them except that according to respondents No. 3 also a notice under section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was issued on 30.4.87 and the same was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated, 9th July 1987. Respondent No. 3 has further stated that with the promulgation of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1987 which was published in official gazette dated, 1.8.87, notification already issued under section 52(2) of 1959 Act shall be deemed to be a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1987 and notification issued under section 52(1) shall be deemed to have been issued under section 6 of the Central Act. Thus, the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were made applicable to proceedings already drawn under 1959 Act. REspondent No. 3 has also alleged concealment of facts on the part of the petitioners by asserting that the petitioners have already challenged the award before the District Judge, Bharatpur under section 18 of the Act. 13. In writ petition No. 3980/91, Brijendra Singh has stated that he is having various portions of the land falling in Khasra Nos. 4470 to 4477 and 4481 to 4485. He has also claimed himself to be an agriculturist by profession. He is said to be having pucca houses, pucca tube well, pucca sheds, pucca godowns over the land. He has been growing variety of fruit trees over the land. He has also stated that there is a Samdhi of the father of the petitioner over the land. His father was Major in the Indian Army. Other Samadhis of his ancestors also exist on the land. He has claimed that he has been growing high quality seeds which are supplied to the Food Corporation of India. 14. In writ petition No. 4193/91 petitioner Shyam Sunder has stated that Notification under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act was issued on 9.7.87. No notice under section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was issued. However, proceedings were taken under sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. Declaration was issued under section 6 on 30.7.88. Notice under section 9 was issued on 18.11.88 and the award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 28.7.90. Petitioner submitted a reference in relation to the inadequacy of compensation. He also filed a miscellaneous appeal against the award but the same was rejected on the ground of non-maintainability with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal proceedings. Other facts mentioned in the writ petition are similar to those mentioned in the writ petition No. 5434/90. 15. Petitioner submitted a reference in relation to the inadequacy of compensation. He also filed a miscellaneous appeal against the award but the same was rejected on the ground of non-maintainability with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal proceedings. Other facts mentioned in the writ petition are similar to those mentioned in the writ petition No. 5434/90. 15. In reply, the respondent No. 3 has controverted the claim made by the petitioner. It has also been stated by the respondents that the petitioner has been digging pits and removing the earth from the land in question. 16. In writ petition No. 5007/91 petitioners Gopal and Padam Singh have stated that their family consists of 18 persons. They possess land measuring 15 Biswas in Khasra No. 4611. Kachcha houses have been built in this land and their entire family live over this land. Other facts regarding acquisition of the land including Khasra No. 4611 are identical to the writ petition No. 1975/91 and therefore, it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the same. 17. In writ petition No. 6790, petitioner Shanti Swaroop has stated that he possesses land in Khasra No. 4449. All other facts are similar to the writ petition of Shyam Sunder (No. 4193/91). 18. In writ petition No. 6794/91, petitioners Jagdish Prasad and Veena Devi have stated that they are joint owners of land falling in Khasra No. 4412. Other averments made in the writ petition are identical to the averments made in the writ petition No. 4193/91 and therefore, it is not necessary to make a detailed reference of these averments. 19. In writ petition No. 6795/91 petitioners Shanti Swaroop and Jagdish have stated that they are owners of land falling in Khasra No. 4450. They have challenged the acquisition proceedings and the award on the same facts and grounds which have been set out in writ petition No. 4193/91. 20. In writ petition No. 6799/91, petitioners Shanti Swaroop, Jagdish Prasad, Raman Lal, Kamlesh Kumari and Rakesh Kumar have stated that they are joint owners of land falling in Khasra No. 4413. These petitioners have also questioned the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the same facts and grounds which have been set out in writ petition No. 4193/91. 21. 20. In writ petition No. 6799/91, petitioners Shanti Swaroop, Jagdish Prasad, Raman Lal, Kamlesh Kumari and Rakesh Kumar have stated that they are joint owners of land falling in Khasra No. 4413. These petitioners have also questioned the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the same facts and grounds which have been set out in writ petition No. 4193/91. 21. In writ petition No. 6800/91, Smt. Kastura Devi and Smt. Shobha Devi have alleged that they are owners of the land falling in Khasra No. 4411. They too have challenged the acquisition proceedings as well as the award on the various facts and grounds set out in the writ petition which are identical to writ petition No. 5434/90. Since detailed reference has already been made in writ petition No. 5434/90 it is not necessary to make again reference of those facts. 22. In writ petition No. 6915/91, Smt. Kamla Devi has also questioned the legality of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the acquisition proceedings. 23. Under the directions of the Court, Shri S. R. Bajwa learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has produced the files containing various documents relating to acquisition of land for Jawahar Nagar Yojna (Phase-I) and (Phase -II). File of phase I shows that acquisition proceedings were initiated some time in the year 1987 and notification under section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act was issued in 1987 and was published in Rajasthan gazette, Part-I(Kha) dated, July 9, 1987. A number of objections were filed against the acquisition proceedings and the Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report dated, 11.7.88. The Land Acquisition Officer gave a report that the land falling in Khasra Nos. 4408,4530,4533, 4583 measuring 6.23 Hectares over which there was Kabristan, land falling in Khasra Nos. 4385, 4436, 4440, 4517, 4519, 4520, 4522, 4529, 4531 and 4632 measuring 2.99 Hactares over which there was a Nala and Khasra No. 4639 measuring 0.11 Hectare over which there was a Dharamshala are not fit for residential purposes. Government land measuring 1.04 Hectares in Khasra Nos. 4371, 4511, 4514, 4515 and another piece of land measuring 0.89 Hectare in Khasra Nos. 4397 to 4399 be not acquired. He also recommended that the land falling in Khasra Nos. Government land measuring 1.04 Hectares in Khasra Nos. 4371, 4511, 4514, 4515 and another piece of land measuring 0.89 Hectare in Khasra Nos. 4397 to 4399 be not acquired. He also recommended that the land falling in Khasra Nos. 4598 to 4600 and 4620 to 4621 which have been converted for residential purposes and over which construction had already been raised may not be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer also recommended that khasra No. 4423 over which a Kund and a temple exist, Khasra No. 4510 and 4516 over which a Hanuman temple exists, khasra No. 4518 over which a temple of Gopal Ji exists, Khasra No. 4521 which was a small pond and over which some construction had been made, Khasra No. 4523 to 4526 and 4532 on which temple, well and Akhara exist, Khasra No 4512 and 4513 over which a Panchayat Ghar and Dharamshala exist, Khasra Nos. 4433, 4435 over which well, Garden and Dharmshala exist and Khasra Nos. 4467,4469 and 4509 over which pucca houses exist be not acquired. He made recommendation for acquisition of land in Khasra Nos. 4453, 4527, 4528, 4534 and 4535 over which three fire work factories existed. Reason given by the Land Acquisition Officer was that.in a residential colony continuance of fire work factories would factories would be dangerous to the people at large and otherwise also it will be necessary to remove these factories. He also recommended acquisition of lands falling in Khasra Nos. 4779/4866, 4582, 4589, 4590, 4593, 4596, 4601, 4610, 4622, 4635, 4638, 4400 to 4405, 4396 4449, 4450, 4413, 4411 to 4413, 4387 over which bricklins are said to be existing. The Land Acquisition Officer observed that it will be against the public interest to leave out these lands from acquisition. He pointed out that it will not be possible to execute the scheme if these lands were not acquired. He further observed that on number of Khasras no bricklins in fact existed. Similar recommendation was made by him for Khasra Nos. 4414 to 4416 and 4445. 24. Thereafter, Notification under section 6 was published in Rajasthan gazette dated, 30.7.88; award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 28.7.90. File of Phase No. II shows that before passing of the award a number of politicians made recommendations for leaving out the lands of some persons. 4414 to 4416 and 4445. 24. Thereafter, Notification under section 6 was published in Rajasthan gazette dated, 30.7.88; award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 28.7.90. File of Phase No. II shows that before passing of the award a number of politicians made recommendations for leaving out the lands of some persons. One such recommendation was made by the District President of B. J. P. Sardar Atma Singh. Another recommendation was made by Shri Than Singh Jatav vide his letter dated, 24.7.90 addressed to the Hon'ble Minister for Local Self Government. Yet another recommendation was made by Shri Girdhari Tiwari District Secretary of Bharatiya Janta Party, district Bharatpur who wrote letter dated, 24.7.90 to Shri Than Singh Member of Parliament. A number of individual persons also made representation to Hon'ble Minister for Local Self Government. Shri Natthi Singh who held the office of the Revenue Minister in the Government of Rajasthan also made similar recommendations vide letter dated, 19th May 1990 addressed to Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma, Hon'ble Minister for Local Self Government. Alongwith that letter representations made by Bharatpur Chambers of Commerce and Industry as also the Bharatpur Fireworks Manufacturing Association were also enclosed. Under the instructions of the Hon'ble Minister for Local Self Government, the Dy. Secretary to the Government wrote letter dated, 30.8.90 to the Chief Town Planner, Rajasthan, Jaipur and Collector cum-Chairman Urban Improvement Trust Bharatpur to send their comments. Collector -cum-Chairman of the Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur wrote back on 6.9.90 recommending leaving out of lands falling in various Khasra Numbers. Another letter of similar nature was written by the Collector and Chairman Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur to the Dy. Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department on 14.9.1990. These two letters show that the Urban Improvement Trust was prepared to leave out a large chunk of land from the scheme acquired by it. However, the Senior Town Planner, Small Towns, Jaipur wrote letter No. TPR11626 BTP dated, 27.10.90 that the fire work factories existing in the scheme area should be removed because existence of these fire work factories was dangerous to the public at large living in residential areas. This file also contains a letter No. 724 dated, 3.8.91 written by the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur to the Dy. Town Planner, Alwar Zone, Alwar, wherein he wrote that the Government has given consent to the release of land from acquisition. 25. This file also contains a letter No. 724 dated, 3.8.91 written by the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur to the Dy. Town Planner, Alwar Zone, Alwar, wherein he wrote that the Government has given consent to the release of land from acquisition. 25. Subsequently, a notification dated, 14.2.91 (Annexure 18 in writ petition No.5434 of 1990) has been issued by the Government for de-acquisition of lands falling in Khasra Nos. 4417, 4496, 4500, 4503 to 4508, 4489, 4427, 4428, 4534 and 4535. 26. A number of contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They have questioned the legality of the notification issued under section 6 on the ground that the same has been issued after the expiry of the statutory period prescribed in Section-11 of the Land Acquisition Act. They have also argued that the Notification issued under section-6 has not been published in terms of the requirement of Section-11. The learned counsel for the petitioner have further submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily. Proceedings of acquisition have been carried out by adopting the methodology of pick and choose. Learned counsel strenuously argued that the land of influential persons have been left out and those of the poor agriculturists have been acquired. Learned counsel also argued that the award has been made without previous approval of the Government as required by Section 11A. They further submitted that merely for providing a residential colony, those who are engaged in the profession of agriculture for generations cannot be deprived of their source of livelihood. Shri Bajwa, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 argued, with his usual tenacity, that the acquisition of the land under the impugned notification is for achieving an important public purpose. He submitted that providing of housing accommodation to the poor and down-trodden in the society is a constitutional obligation of the State and if one agency of the State has undertaken this task, injury if any, suffered by a few individuals cannot be a ground for quashing the acquisition proceedings. Shri Bajwa submitted that provisions contained in Section 11 and Section 11A are not mandatory and even if there has been a technical breach of those provisions, the Court must not interfere with the acquisition which is in larger public interest. Shri Bajwa further argued that the charge of arbitrariness levelled against the non-petitioners is wholly unjust and unfounded. Shri Bajwa submitted that provisions contained in Section 11 and Section 11A are not mandatory and even if there has been a technical breach of those provisions, the Court must not interfere with the acquisition which is in larger public interest. Shri Bajwa further argued that the charge of arbitrariness levelled against the non-petitioners is wholly unjust and unfounded. He submitted that the land which has been left out from acquisition is only keeping in view the peculiar situation of the land. He submitted that leaving out of the land in which there is a Kabristan or temples or Dharmshala or departmental store was based on rational considerations. 27. Shri Bajwa also argued that if, at all the Court finds that some of the lands have been left out arbitrarily or have been deacquired subsequently for extraneous reasons, proper course which the Court should adopt is to order reacquisition of those lands. However, there is no justification for declaring the entire acquisition as bad, argued Shri Bajwa. 28. Section-6, 11(1) and 11A which are relevant for the purpose of examination of the merits of the rival contentions are reproduced below : "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. However, there is no justification for declaring the entire acquisition as bad, argued Shri Bajwa. 28. Section-6, 11(1) and 11A which are relevant for the purpose of examination of the merits of the rival contentions are reproduced below : "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5A, sub-section(2) that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4, subsection (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5A, sub- section (2): Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1), (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 to 1967), but before the commencement of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made from the date of publication of notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification : provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration) and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected." "Sec. 11(1)- On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land (at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him : Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this subsequent without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf : Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of case as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. (2) to (3)XXXXXX "11-A. The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse : Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation - In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded." 29. From the above referred provisions it is to be noted that a significant change has been brought about by virtue of the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act. The said Act as it stood prior to the amendment of 1984 did not provide for any time limit for making of a declaration under section-6 after the publication of the notice under section-4. No time limit was provided for making an award after declaration under section-6 had been published. Amendments were made in the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 and once again by the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984. By virtue of the last Amendment Act, Sections-4, 6 and 11 have been amended and Section-11A has been added. 1984 Amendment has been brought about in order to put an end to the undue delays in the completion of the acquisition proceedings. Precisely for this purpose, separate time frame for each stage of the proceedings has been provided. As per this time frame a declaration under Section-6 is required to be made within one year of the publication of the Notification under Section-4 and thereafter an award has to be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration. Failure to adhere to this time frame is fatal to the acquisition proceedings. 30. In Jagrup Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 (1) RLR 727 = AIR 1993 Raj. 157 , this Court has examined the scope of the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act by Amendment Act of 1984. Failure to adhere to this time frame is fatal to the acquisition proceedings. 30. In Jagrup Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 (1) RLR 727 = AIR 1993 Raj. 157 , this Court has examined the scope of the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act by Amendment Act of 1984. This Court held : "It has been discussed above that the amendments in Sections 4, 6 and 11 have been brought and Section 11A has been inserted to suppress the mischief that may be caused due to prolonged delay in completion of land acquisition proceedings, which resulted in undue harassment of citizens, who were being deprived of their land compulsorily by pegging the market value of land to the date of notification under Section 4 for the purpose of determining compensation under the Act; by providing a time frame for completion of each stage. If the contention raised by the respondents is to be accepted it would result in that event after providing for time frame, for making a declaration under Section 6 after publication of notification under Section 4, and further time limit for making an award after publication of declaration under Section 6; the period between signing of declaration and its publication, remain unprovided by any time limit and the resultant position would be the same, that after signing of the declaration it may not be published at all or, is published after considerable long period, without affecting the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. Not only that, even in cases where publication of declaration under section 6 is made in one or more modes, provided under Section 6(2), but not in all the modes provided under Section 6(2) and such publication is kept in abeyance for indefinite period so as to keep the time limit for completion of award also in abeyance, for indefinite period, in as much as, section 6(2) clearly provides that last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice shall be the date of publication of declaration; and, the limitation for making of an award is stated to be from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6. Section- 6(2) provides 3 modes of publication of declaration, namely, publication in Official Gazette, publication in two daily papers circulating in the locality in which the land is situated and of which at least one shall be in the regional language; and lastly, the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at the convenient places in the said locality. All the publications are not required to be simultaneous, that is to say, publication in different modes can be at different times. last of the dates of such publication is to be treated the date of publication of declaration. Accepting the contention of the respondents would mean that it would be possible for the administration to sign a declaration, publish in one or two modes and keep publication of one mode in abeyance indefinitely and, thereby making or an award be put in abeyance in as much as limitation for making of an award under Section 11A, according to the respondents, would not commence at all until publication in all the modes have not been made. This would be nullifying the very object for which the amendments have been brought to suppress the mischief." "Apart from what has been discussed above my conclusion is not rested on grammatical meaning of ward "declaration" alone. It will be noticed that in Section 6(1), the phrase used is "declaration shall be made and, in sub-section (3) of section 6 also, the phraseology of "making such declaration" has been used. To be precise, sub-section(3) provides-"after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in the manner hereinafter appearing". If making of a declaration does not partake within its ambit, making it known to others, in the manner provided under Section 6(2); then it would result in a very anamolous situation. In that event, in terms of Section 6(3), as soon as the declaration is made, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in the manner hereinafter appearing;"that is to say, it can put into execution the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, commencing from Section 7 onwards, as soon as a document of satisfaction about need for acquisition was signed by the Secretary to the Government or by any other officer authorised in this behalf, without there being publication of the declaration in the manner provided under sub-section (2) of Section 6. It is nobody's case, rather it is an admitted premise; that publication of declaration in all the modes is necessary before it becomes operative and it is the case of the respondents also that the phraseology of sub-section (2) suggests that the date of publication is relevant .for the purpose of the provisions of the Act, appearing after Section 6(2). If the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents is to be accepted, the date of publication referred after Section 6(2) is relevant only for section 11-A, as the phrase "from the date of publication of declaration" finds place only in section 11A. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 also does not use the word "publication", but uses the word "making such declaration", that is to say, verb "make" has been used for "declaration" in both the provisions, of Section 6, sub-sections (1) and (3). If the "making of a declaration" within its ambit does not include the "publication of such declaration' then it would be contradiction terms, to say that, publication of declaration in all the modes is mandatory requirement, before further proceedings can be taken in terms of declaration but the statute authorises to take further proceedings for acquiring the land in the manner appearing after sub-section (3) of section 6, as soon as the declaration is made; as distinguished from 'declaration is published". Naturally, accepting the contention on its face will exclude the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 for the purpose of putting into action the acquisition proceedings after "making" such declaration. The acceptance of interpretation suggested by the respondents would mean that even before the publication of a declaration in the modes prescribed by the Act, the land may be acquired in the manner appearing in the provisions of the Act succeeding sub-section (3) of Section 6, rendering the provisions of section 6(2), which are admitted to be mandatory, wholly nugatory. If, on the other hand, it is suggested that while for the purposes of Section 6(1), making of a declaration has a different meaning than for the purpose of Section 6(3), in as much as, making of such declaration under Section 6(3) would include its publication as well, then it strengthen conclusion that at best the phrase "declaration shall be made" is capable of more than one meaning. In that event, if would be a requirement of principle enunciated in Heydon's case (1584-3 Co. In that event, if would be a requirement of principle enunciated in Heydon's case (1584-3 Co. Rep 7a) (supra) to accept that interpretation which effectuates the object and purport of Law and suppress that mischief for which it has been brought into in existence in preference to that, which would leave room for subtle intervention and invasion for continuance of the mischief. The interpretation which I have accepted leaves no period from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 until the date of making of an award, unprovided for by a time making of an award, unprovided for by a time- frame and would further the object of the amendments by suppressing the mischief of prolonged delay for want of any provision in the Act providing for a time-frame to complete the land acquisition proceedings. The word "declaration" used under Section 6(1), cannot be in the Scheme, as it presently exists, be treated to be an order of acquisition by the appropriate Government, as suggested by learned counsel for the respondent. sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in the manner hereinafter appearing, that is to say, in the provisions succeeding Section 6 of the Act." 31. In Darshan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (2) RLR 790 = 1992 (1) WLC 140 , this Court quashed the acquisition proceedings on the ground that declaration under Section 6(1) could be made only within a period of one year and if it is not so made the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. 32. In Vishambar Dayal and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1991 (1) WLC 686 , this Court held that with the coming into force of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, provisions of the Central Act would apply. The court deduced several principles after discussing the provisions of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959, the Amendment Act of 1987 as well as the Land Acquisition Act and held that except Section-60A(3) other parts of the Amendment Act were not consistent with the Central Act. 33. If, in the light of the above, the facts of these cases are recapitulated, it becomes crystal clear that notification under section 52 (2) of the Urban Improvement Act was issued on 30.4.87 and was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated, 9.7.87. 33. If, in the light of the above, the facts of these cases are recapitulated, it becomes crystal clear that notification under section 52 (2) of the Urban Improvement Act was issued on 30.4.87 and was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated, 9.7.87. With the coming into force of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Amendment Act, 1987 the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 became applicable to those proceedings. Report was submitted by the competent Officer to the Government on 11.7.88 and a Notification was published on 30.7.88. It is thus, clear that the Notification under section 6 was published after the expiry of the period of one year counted from the date of publication of the notice under section 4 (Sec. 52(2) of the Urban Improvement Act). Thispatent breach of Section-6(1) has the effect of vitiating the entire acquisition proceedings as has been held in Jagrup Signh's case (supra) and Darshan Singh's case (supra). 34. Another serious infirmity with which the impugned acquisition proceedings suffers is that the declaration has not been published in the two daily newspapers circulated in the locality in which the land is situate nor it has been shown that the notice was got published at convenient places in the locality. Thus, section 6(2) has also been violated. 35. In so far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding passing of the award is concerned, I find that the award has been given on 28.7.90. In terms of Section 11(1) the award was required to be made after previous approval of the appropriate Government or any officer authorised by the Government in that behalf. The record of the case does not show that previous approval of the Government has been obtained by the competent officer before making the award. More-over, even though, the respondent No. 3 has pleaded that previous approval was given on 30.7.90, but no material has been placed on record by the respondent No. 3 to substantiate this plea. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the impugned award has been made in violation of Section-11 of the Act. 36. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have adopted methodology of pick and choose has been rebutted by the respondents but this rebuttal is extremely weak. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the impugned award has been made in violation of Section-11 of the Act. 36. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have adopted methodology of pick and choose has been rebutted by the respondents but this rebuttal is extremely weak. The facts which have been narrated in the earlier part of the judgment shows that before publication of the Notification under section-6, the Urban Improvement Trust had made recommendation for leaving out some lands. These lands were sought to be left out only because pucca houses have been constructed over these lands. Subsequently, the Government issued Notification dated, 14.2.91 for de-acquisition of the lands falling in different Khasra numbers. The record shows that this Notification has been issued under political influence. No reason other than political pressure has been put forward by the respondents to justify de- acquisition of the land. The most surprising is that the land belonging to fire work factories has been de-acquired despite the unequivocal opinion of the Town Planning Authorities that continuance of such factories in a residential colony would be hazardous to the public at large. Indeed, it does not require a detailed elaboration and discussion for reaching a conclusion that existence of fire work factories in residential colonies constitute real and grave threat to the lives of the residents of the locality. That apart, if the lands of other land holders could be excluded from acquisition or de-acquired only on the ground that there exist pucca houses over such lands, there is no justifiable reason to acquire the lands of others who have raised pucca or kachcha houses over the lands. Indeed no justification has been offered as to why the respondents have adopted the methodology of pick and choose. 37. I have considered the argument of Shri Bajwa that the Court will not order quashing of the proceedings only on the ground that some of the lands have been left out or have been de-acquired. Ordinarily, I may have accepted the submission of Shri Bajwa, but, having regard to the patent illegality with which the acquisition proceedings suffer, I have not considered it appropriate to uphold the acquisition proceedings and give a direction to the respondents to take proceedings for re-acquisition of the left out pieces of land or those which have been de-acquired by Notification dated 14.2.91. 38. 38. Although, a number of other points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners for quashing of the award on merits, in my opinion, it is not necessary to decide them because of the fatal defects in the acquisition proceedings of which reference has been made hereinabove. 39. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Acquisition proceedings of the lands of the petitioners initiated vide notification dated, 30.4.87 are declared illegal and are hereby quashed. 40. The aforesaid decision shall however, not preclude the respondents from taking fresh proceedings for acquisition of the lands belonging to the petitioners. However, while undertaking these proceedings the respondents will bear in mind the allegation of the petitioners regarding discrimination and only appropriate course for the respondents would be to acquire all the lands belonging to private parties which have been left out and for which de-acquisition notification has been issued, in case the respondents finally decide to take fresh proceedings for the acquisition. The respondents will also bear in mind that acquisition of agricultural land causes irreparable injury to the agriculturists because, not only they are deprived of their source of livelihood but their future generations are put to peril. I have not considered this aspect of the matter in detail in these cases, because, in my opinion, it is not necessary to do so. I, therefore, leave this question-open for consideration in some other proceedings as to whether acquisition of the lands belonging to the small agriculturists for the avowed object of providing housing accommodation to the urban elite or so called urban poors is at all justified in the context of the directive principles of State Policy.Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petitions allowed. *******