JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings by this writ petition on the following grounds (i) that 13 big has of land situated in village Sheopur, Tehsil Sanganer Distt. Jaipur is situated in green-belt and therefore the Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to acquire the same; (ii) that notice under Section 9(3) has not been served on the petitioners and therefore acquisition could not be validly made; (iii) that the land in question was below the ceiling limits and therefore in accordance with the second provision to Art. 31-A of the Constitution, the said land could not be acquired. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that possession of the land was taken on 19.8.89 whereas the writ petition was filed on 6.9.91. Thousands of the houses have been constructed and crores of rupees have been invested. The writ petition suffers from laches. 3. So far as the preliminary objection is concerned, I have considered over the matter. In this case the award was passed on 30.5.91. Though possession of the land was taken on 19.8.89, the pleas which have been raised were also available to the petitioner at the time when the acquisition proceedings were initiated and there was no obstacle in the way to challenge the acquisition the ground that the land is situated in green-belt. No satisfactory explanation has been given with regard to the delay. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 4. The point which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner came up for consideration in S. B. Civil writ petition No. 354/89-decided on 6.4.93. The court found that there is no infirmity in the notification and relief can be granted to the petitioner. Crores of rupees have been spent in the development. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of laches as it was found that initially the notification was issued in 1983-84 and the writ petition was filed in 1989. The present writ petition has been filed in 1991 after inordinate delay. 5. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the notification was issued in which the land was declared as urban area and a copy of the notification has been submitted. The present writ petition has been filed in 1991 after inordinate delay. 5. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the notification was issued in which the land was declared as urban area and a copy of the notification has been submitted. In State of Haryana v. Sukhdev, 1995 SCC (Supp-1) 34 the acquisition had become final. In the present case possession was taken in 1989 and therefore the petitioner has a right of compensation and cannot challenge the validity of the acquisition. In the case of Satyendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1993 SC 2517 it was held by the Apex Court that the acquisition of land was by invoking provisions of Section 17 and the land has been vested in the Government, the award is not made within 2 years, it will not affect the validity thereof and the only right to a person is that he can claim for compensation. 6. Another contention which has been raised is that notice under Section 9(3) has not been given is incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner has filed vakalatnama and therefore the petitioner had knowledge. Vakalatnama could not have been filed without any notice. 7. The third contention which has been raised is that the land of the petitioner cannot be acquired because it is within the ceiling limit under the ceiling law and reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Banshi v. State, 1969 RLW 7 .Learned Counsel relied upon the provision of Art. 31-A (1) of the Constitution. 8. I have considered over the matter. Article 31-A of the Constitution provides for saving laws providing for acquisition of estates. `Estate' has been defined in relation to any local area having the same meaning as that expression or its local equivalent has in the existing law relating to land tenures in force in that area. Estate is genesis of which land is species. It is the bundle of rights in the form of state which is protected by this Article. The Article itself says that it does not apply to all forms of private properties. The application of Art. 31-A is restricted to Estate not to the right in any land. The object for bringing said Article was for providing acquisition of states of Jamindars and Jagirdars etc. The Article itself says that it does not apply to all forms of private properties. The application of Art. 31-A is restricted to Estate not to the right in any land. The object for bringing said Article was for providing acquisition of states of Jamindars and Jagirdars etc. so that they may not attack the validity of the acquisition on the ground of infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed under part III of the Constitution. In the statement of objects and reasons it was said that "It will be recalled that the Zamindari abolition laws which came first in our programme of social welfare legislation were attached by the interests affected mainly with reference to Articles 14, 19 and 31 and that in order to put an end to the dilatory and wasteful litigation and place these laws above challenge in the courts. Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule were enacted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. Subsequent judicial decision interpreting article 14, 19 and 31 have raised serious difficulties in the way of Union and the States putting through other and equally important social welfare legislation on the desired lines e.g. the following (i) While the abolition of zamindaris and numerous intermediaries between the State and tiller of the soil has been achieved for the most part, our next objectives in land reforms are the fixing of limits to the extent of agricultural land that may be owned or occupied by any person, the disposal of any land held in excess of the prescribed maximum and the further modification of the rights of land owners and tenants in agricultural holdings. (ii) In the interest of national economy the State should have full control over the mineral and oil resources of the country including in particular, the power to cancel or modify the terms and conditions of prospecting licences, mining leases and similar agreements. (iii) It is often necessary to take over under State management for a temporary period a commercial or industrial undertaking or other property in the public interest or in order to secure the better management of the undertaking or property. Laws providing for such temporary transference to the State management should be permissible under the Constitution. (iii) It is often necessary to take over under State management for a temporary period a commercial or industrial undertaking or other property in the public interest or in order to secure the better management of the undertaking or property. Laws providing for such temporary transference to the State management should be permissible under the Constitution. (iv) The reforms in company law now under contemplation like the progressive elimination of the managing agency system, provision for the compulsory amalgamation of the two or more companies in the national interest the transfer of an undertaking from one company to another, etc., require to be placed above challenge. It is accordingly proposed in clause (3) of the Bill to extend the scope of Article 31-A so as to cover these categories of essential social welfare legislation.The amending Act has accordingly substituted a new clause for clause (1) of Article 31-A which is deemed to be always substituted. The amended clause (1) has added four new categories of legislation which shall not be open to challenge on the ground that they are inconsistent with or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31. These laws providing for (i) taking over the management or any property by the State for a limited period. (ii) amalgamation of two or more corporations. (iii) extinguishment or modification of rights of persons interested in corporations. (iv) extinguishment of modification of rights occurring under any agreement lease or licence relating to any mineral or mineral oil." From the above statement of objects and reasons it is evident that this Article in the Constitution was added to get rid of the difficulties arising out of the abolition of zamindaries where numerous intermediaries were working between the State and tillers. The said Article 31-A cannot be construed to mean that the power of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act cannot be exercised if the land is beyond ceiling limit. The acquisition of the land which is beyond the ceiling limit is under the different provisions then the acquisition under general power and is for public benefit if the land is acquired by the State for any public purposes, the acquisition of such agricultural land cannot be said to be prohibited by Article 31-A of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, the writ petition has no force. It is hereby dismissed. *******