JUDGMENT 1. - All these writ petitions are disposed of by this single judgment because the controversy involved in dispute pertains to acquisition of land in respect of Khasra No. 758 Min measuring 1.500 Square yards situated at Chak No. 2 Deeg Road, Bharatpur. The total land of this Khasara is 9 Bighas and 10 Biswas out of which 1 Bigha and 10 Biswas was recorded in the Khatedari of Ram Kumar and Sons and 1 Bigha and 10 Biswas in the Khatedari of Baijnath Prasad and I Bigha and 10 Biswas in Khatedari of Ram Swaroop, 5 Bighas was recorded in the Khatedari of Gordhan Dass, Durga Prasad, Beharilal, Nand Kishore and Dr. Fatch Singh. The share of first three persons was 8/25 i.e. 1 Bigha and 12 Biswas and that of Dr. Fatch Singh, 17/25. i.e. 3 Bighas and 8 Biswas. Dr. Fatch Singh got 1,000 Sq. Yards of land converted from Agriculture to Commercial vide order dated 18.2.83 and 5(X) Sq. Yards land was converted vide order dated 30th Nov. 1983. A notification dated 26th Nov. 1983 (Annex. 12) was issued. At S. No. 5 the name of Govardhan Dass etc. Khasra No. (7-8/25 and Dr. Fateh Singh S/o Gurumukh Singh, depicting share 17/25, was shown and the land sought to be acquired was 1 Bigha 19 Biswas. It appears that after this notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, Dr. Fateh Singh sold the disputed land to the various persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following objections before me : (i) that the total disputed land of 15(X) Sq. Yards, was already converted for commercial purposes and in the notification issued it has not been mentioned that it is a commercial land; (ii) that no notice to the purchasers/petitioner have been issued. (iii) the name of place where the land was situated has not properly been mentioned; (iv) Land has wrongly been shown as Agricultural. 2. It is also stated that the land which was sought to be acquired i.e. I Bigha I') Biswas was not in dispute because that was earlier acquired and award was given on 7.3.89 and the dispute is only in respect of 150) Sq. Yards of land. 3. Dr. Fateh Singh filed the objection before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that the land has been sold and he has no concern with that. Yards of land. 3. Dr. Fateh Singh filed the objection before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that the land has been sold and he has no concern with that. It may he observed that after the execution of the sale-deed by Dr. Fateh Singh, the name in the revenue record was not tried to be mutated and it was on the basis of the entries of the revenue record that the notification was issued. The only objection which has been submitted by Dr. Fateh` Singh is that he has sold the land but the complete details were not stated as to whom he has sold the land. Neither the name of the purchaser nor the specific area was stated in the reply submitted. The gazette notification was issued on 15.4.86 and published in gazette on 1.5.80. A notification under Section 4(5) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was issued inviting the objections of the persons within 30 days of the notification, but no objections were filed. The validity of acquisition on the basis of Annexure-18 dated 31.10.88 newspaper dated 13.1.89 have been challenged. 4. Firstly, when the land was purchased, the petitioner's could not get the name mutated in the revenue record and secondly, the name of the Khatedars mentioned as per revenue record was a sufficient compliance of law. Thirdly, the submissions and objections by Dr. Fateh Singh without giving the specific names of the persons whom the land has been sold makes it clear that there was not vagueness in the notification and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification did not mention the place of name etc. has no substance. A notification dated 31st Oct. 1988, was issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dispensing enquiry under Section 5-A in respect of the disputed land 3 Bigha 1 Biswa including 1500 Sq. yards and as such after exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the Central Act. The petitioner is entitled for compensation only. Since the possession has already been taken on 15.4.1981), 151111 Sq. yards land vest with the respondents. yards and as such after exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the Central Act. The petitioner is entitled for compensation only. Since the possession has already been taken on 15.4.1981), 151111 Sq. yards land vest with the respondents. It may be because earlier there was some mistake in the notification and therefore, the second notification was issued but after issue of notification under Section 17(4), the land vest with the respondents and the petitioner has only a right of compensation. 5. It was held in General Manager, Telecommunication and another v. Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan & Ors., 1995 Supl. (4) SCC 268 , that once the possession of the land is validly taken and award is made; the land vests with the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances, the notification under Section 4(1) or the declaration under Section (6) cannot be quashed on the ground that the exercise of power under Section 17(4) was invalid. In Market Committee Hodal v. Krishan Murari & Ors., reported in 1996(1) SCC 311 , wherein it was held by the Apex Court that if the award is validly made and possession of the land is taken, the land vests with the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. The High Court is not justified in interfering with regard to the notification under Section,17(4) dispensing the inquiry and under Section 5-A at a belated stage. Reliance has been placed in the case of State of Haryana v. Dewan Singh, reported in 1996(7) SCC 394 , where the notification was challenged after 13 months of the award. The interference by the High Court was set-aside by the Apex Court. In Avaidh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1995(6) SCC 3 , observed that if the notification under Section 17 have been issued and land is vested with the State Government, the provisions of Section 11-A are not applicable and the proceedings would not lapse even if not completed within the prescribed under Section 11-A. 6. For the purpose of calculating compensation the nature of land as on the date of notification under Section 4 could be taken and the petitioner may even rely the sale- deed executed. 7. In the writ petition a wrong averment was made by the petitioner that the notification has not been published in the gazette. For the purpose of calculating compensation the nature of land as on the date of notification under Section 4 could be taken and the petitioner may even rely the sale- deed executed. 7. In the writ petition a wrong averment was made by the petitioner that the notification has not been published in the gazette. The original gazette dated 15.4.86, was published in the notification dated 1st May, 1986 at page No. 98 Part-I-Kha of the gazette which was called from the library and shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts which have been stated it was found that the petitioner has no legal right for interference by this Court and wrong averment in this petition has also been made with regard to the non- publication of the notification under Section 4(1). 8. All these writ petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- on each of the petitioner and the amount shall be deposited with the Secretary, Legal Aid within 15 days.Writ petition dismissed. *******