Honble RAVANI, C.J. – In all these special appeals, the question with regard to the validity of acquisition proceedings initiated by different notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short `the Act) was challenged. The learned Single Judge set aside the acquisition. In appeals filed by the U.I.T. and the State Government of Rajasthan, the Division Bench held that Sec. 4 notification was validly published and there was no substance in the challenge to the publication of Sec. 4 notification. However, as regard the question as to whether there should be a sanctioned notified scheme for which the land is required should be in existence before the issuance of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act and declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act is concerned, the Division Bench felt that the question was required to be examined by a Larger Bench. Therefore, the Division Bench by judgment and order dated April 20, 1995 referred by following question to the Larger Bench :– ``Whether the proceedings for acquiring the land can be initiated and completed in the absence of sanctioned notified Scheme for which the land is required. (2). The Full Bench of this Court decided the aforesaid question as per judgment and order dated November 1, 1995 and answered the question in affirmative in the context of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 read with Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Full Bench further directed that the matter should be placed before the Division Bench for hearing and disposal of the appeals. This is how these special appeals have been placed before the Division Bench for deciding the same in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench and in accordance with law. (3). Few relevant facts may be stated. For west Pal Road residential scheme, notification u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on March 1, 1990 and declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was made by the State Government of Rajasthan on March 15, 1991. (4). For east Pal Road residential scheme, Sec. 4 notification was issued on Sept. 18, 1989 and declaration under Sec. 6 was made on January 19, 1991. For the purposes of stone timber market, notification under Sec. 4 was issued on Sept. 16, 1989 and declaration under Sec. 6 was made on Jan. 4, 1991. (5). (4). For east Pal Road residential scheme, Sec. 4 notification was issued on Sept. 18, 1989 and declaration under Sec. 6 was made on January 19, 1991. For the purposes of stone timber market, notification under Sec. 4 was issued on Sept. 16, 1989 and declaration under Sec. 6 was made on Jan. 4, 1991. (5). As stated above, by filing different S.B. Civil Writ Petitions, the owners of the land and certain other interested person had challenged the legality and validity of the land acquisition proceedings before this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that Sec. 4 notification was not published in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Act. According to the learned Single Judge, the requirement of publication of this notification in the concerned locality was not complied with. Therefore, the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings by impugned notification was held to be bad. Similarly, the contention that before initiating the land acquisition proceedings, there should be a sanctioned notified scheme for which the land is required was held in favour of the petitioners. In appeals, the Division Bench reserved and set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge as regards the non-compliance of the mandatory requirement regarding publication of Sec. 4 notification in the locality concerned. As stated above, the Division Bench referred the question with regard to absence of sanctioned notified Scheme to the Larger Bench. The Full Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated November 1, 1995 decided the question referred to it in affirmative. In other words, the Full Bench held that the acquisition proceedings could be initiated and completed in absence of sanctioned notified scheme for which the land is sought to be acquired. No other contention is raised in these appeals. (6). In view of this position, nothing further is required to be done. (7). In the result, in view of the Full Bench decision dated Novembe r 1, 1995 in Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (1), all these special appeals are allowed, judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions is reversed and set aside and the writ petitions are ordered to be rejected with no order as to costs. (8). & Ors. (1), all these special appeals are allowed, judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in respective writ petitions is reversed and set aside and the writ petitions are ordered to be rejected with no order as to costs. (8). There is another batch of S.B.C. Writ Petitions mentioned in Schedule `A which are ordered to be listed before the Division Bench by the Chief Justice as per order dated November 29, 1995. (9). Mr. L.S. Udawat, learned Addl. Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of State Government of Rajasthan. Mr. N.M. Lodha and Mr. Vasudeo Solanki accept notice on behalf of U.I.T. (10). The learned counsel appearing for the parties have requested to take up the matters of final disposal. Thus, at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, all these matters are also being heard and decided together with the aforesaid special appeals. (11). The questions raised in all these writ petitions mentioned in Schedule `A are squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (2), and Full Bench decision of this Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur vs. The State of Raj. & Ors., (supra). In other words, in all these petitions the challenge was to the legality and validity of Sec. 4 notification inter alia on the ground that the notification was not properly published in the locality concerned and, therefore, there was breach of mandatory provisions of Sec. 4 of the Act. This question stands decided against the petitioner by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated April 20, 1995 in the case of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (supra). As far as the requirement of sanctioned notified scheme is concerned, the Full Bench by the judgment and order dated Nov. 1, 1995 in the case of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (supra) has decided the question referred to it against the petitioners. Therefore, all these petitioners are also required to be disposed of and rejected. It is undisputed position that in all these petitions mentioned in Schedule `A, no other question is involved and no other conten- tion is raised. (12). Hence, all these writ petitions mentioned is Schedule `A are also rejected with no order as to costs.