JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions challenge the legality and validity of the notifications issued under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 seeking to acquire certain lands mentioned in the notifications situated in Udaipur for the purposes and at the instance of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Udaipur. Both these petitions raised several contentions on the basis of which, it is contended that the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed. The petitioners assailed the same notifications and raised the same grounds for challenge. Hence, are being decided by consent of the parties by this common order. 2. During the arguments, it transpired that though several other contentions are raised in these petition, the entire controversy as to the validity or otherwise of the notifications can be decided purely on the basis of law and facts not disputed intra-parties. Hence, the other contentions raised in the petitions are not being considered while deciding these petitions by this order.3-4. Tho facts which are undisputed pertaining to the issue of these notifications are as under; the acquisition proceedings were commenced under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. A notification under Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act was issued on 27-7-1979 and it was published in the Official Gazette of the Government of Rajasthan on 2nd August, 1979 by 3rd November, 1979, the said notification under Sec. 4 was published locally also. The matter then proceeded for consideration of objections under Sec. 5 of the Rajasthan Act.5. Thereafter, on 29-6-84, the respondent Government issued a notification under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 17(4) of the Rajasthan Act, thereby applying urgency clause to the acquisition proceedings. These facts are undisputed and on the basis of these facts it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notification under 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act is liable to be quashed as being issued and published after the stipulated period of limitation. On construction of the relevant sections, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Agricultural produce Marketing Committee, Shri L. R. Mehta urged that the period of limitation as claimed to be applicable by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted in the circumstances of the present case and therefore, the notifications are valid and legal. I propose to examine the rival contentions in this back-ground.6. I propose to examine the rival contentions in this back-ground.6. The Rajasthan Acquisition Act 1953 (Rajasthan Act 24 of 1953) was enacted to proceed for acquisition of land in the State of Rajasthan which was then a Part B State and therefore, not covered by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). However, the provisions of the Rajasthan Act are pari materia with the provisions of the Central Act. Section 4 of the Act provides, as does not Central Act, for preliminary proceedings preceding intended acquisition. The Rajasthan Act further provides for issue of individual notice to all persons interested in the land as also a public notice to be given at a convenient place on or about the land proposed to be acquired. Section 5 provides for hearing of objections to the intended acquisition and Section 6 provides for declaration that the land is required by the State for the public purpose and shall be acquired. We are concerned, in the present case with the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Act as amended from time to time as also the provisions of the amending Act respectively. There is no dispute regarding substantial compliance of the requirements of the Sec. 4 of the Rajathan Act. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the notification issued under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Act on 26-6-84 is beyond period of limitation prescribed by that section and therefore, void-ab-initio requiring it to be quashed by writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. It is the submission of the learned counsel that Section 6 after the amendment provides for limitation within which the declaration in Sec. 6 can be made in relation to the land acquisition of which was intended by the notification under Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act. This submission is countered by the learned counsel for the respondents by saying that the period of limitation prescribed by Sec. 6 as amended is applicable only in cases where the notice under Sec. 4(5) of the Rajasthan Act was issued after the commencement of the amending Act. I have proceeded to consider these basic arguments in light of the various provisions of the Act.7. It will be necessary, therefore, to examine at length the various provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act.8. I have proceeded to consider these basic arguments in light of the various provisions of the Act.7. It will be necessary, therefore, to examine at length the various provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act.8. The provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 were required to be amended to overcome legal consequences following decision of the Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma on 9th February, 1966 (reported in AIR 1966 SC 1593 ). It was held by the Supreme Court of India that the totality of the actions under Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Central Act is a single process and individual actions under those sections are part and parcel of the similar questions. Consequently declarations under Sec. 6 made in parcels on different actions basing on the same under Sec. 4 were found to be invalid in the large number of cases, such situation arose in the State of Rajasthan also and hence, the Governor of Rajasthan issued Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance and it was followed by an Act which came into force in 1981. By this amendment, provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Act were amended and a limitation was prescribed for making a declaration under Sec. 6.9. Taking into consideration these amendments, it was therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shir Muchhala that period of limitation of three years will apply in the instant case and admittedly, the notification under Sec. 6 having been issued after three years is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the statement of object and reasons given in the Bill for passing the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981. It was strenuously argued by the learned counsel that it was definitely the intention of the legislature to prescribe a period of limitation to ensure that the land acquisition proceedings do not linger on for unduly long time. It was strenuously argued by the learned counsel that it was definitely the intention of the legislature to prescribe a period of limitation to ensure that the land acquisition proceedings do not linger on for unduly long time. It would be beneficial for proper understanding submissions made by the learned counsel to consider the entire statements of the objects and reason which are reproduced here in under: "In acquisition of land for big projects, it generally happens that a single notice is issued under Section 4(5) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 which indicates that a particular area of land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose. This is then followed by one or more declarations under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the land specified in the aforesaid notice to the effect that such land is needed for a public purpose or for a company or for Union purposes as and when the plans are completed for the various stages of the project e. g. plant, township and ancillary requirements. In their judgment dated 9th February, 1966 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma (reported in AIR 1966 SC 1593 ) , the Supreme Court held that once a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is issued, whether it be in respect of a part of the land comprised in the notification under Sec. 4(1) or in respect of the whole of it, the effect of the initial notification is exhausted and no further declarations under Section 6 of the Act are sustainable. In other words Government cannot acquire land by means by successive declarations following the notification under Sec. 4(1) in respect of a particular area. The Supreme Court has construed the acts done under Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Act as part and parcel of a single process.The above decision of the Supreme Court, however, has the effect of upsetting a large number of proceedings for land acquisition for various public purposes throughout the State as in most cases of bigger projects acquisition has been done in stages consistent with the requirements of the situation and a single notice under Sec. 4(5) has been followed with more than one declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It was not possible to reopen all such cases and to start proceedings afresh as it would have seriously dislocated projects for which land had been acquired and compensation paid.Consequently to overcome the adverse effect of the Supreme Court judgment and in view of the urgency of the situation affecting many important projects it is necessary to amend the Rajashtan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 to provide for submission of either one report in respect of the land for the acquisition of which notice has been given under Section 4(5) or different reports in respect of different parcels of land to the State Government containing the recommendations of the Collector on the objections submitted by the interested persons under Section 5A(1) of the Act to the acquisition to the land covered by the notice given under Section 4(5) or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. It has been provided that, if necessary, more than one declarations may be issued from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notice under Section 4(5) of the Act irrespective of the fact whether one report or different reports has or have been made under Section 5A(2) of the Act.At the same time, care has been taken to ensure that land acquisition proceedings do not linger on for unduly long time. The Bill, therefore, provides that no declaration under Section 6 of the Act should be issued in respect of any particular land covered by a notice under Section (5) after the expiry of three years of the date of such notice. In case of pending proceedings, it has been provided that no declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of any land for the acquisition of which notice has been given under Section 4(5) may be issued after expiry of two years.Opportunity has also been taken to amend Section 11 of the principal Act in order to make provision for consent awards in land acquisition cases where all the persons interested in the land arc1 agreeable to it. As the matter was urgent' the Governor promulgated the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1981 (Ordinance No. 5 of 1981) on 27th June, 198110. As the matter was urgent' the Governor promulgated the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1981 (Ordinance No. 5 of 1981) on 27th June, 198110. It will thus, be observed from the statement of objects and reasons given above that it was definitely the intention of Rajasthan Legislature to ensure that land acquisition proceedings do not linger on for unduly long time and it was therefore, provided that no declaration under Section 6 of the Act shod be issued. In respect of any particular land covered by a notice under Sec. 4(5) after the expiry of three years and in case of pending proceedings, the limitation was of two years. Relying on these objects, it was contended by Shri Muchhala, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rajashtan Assembly did positively consider putting of limitation for acquisition of land and therefore, the period of three years prescribed by Sec. 6 after amendment must apply to all proceedings.11. Replying these arguments, Shri. L. R. Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that it was certainly the intention of the legislature to put a period of limitation on acquisition of land but the period prescribed by Sec. 6 after amendment is applicable only in cases where a notice under Sec. 4(5) of the Rajasthan Act is given after the commencement of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1981. According to the learned counsel for application of the limitation of three years, the notice contemplated in Sec. 6 after amendment is given under Sec. 4(5) of the Rajasthan Act and after 27th June, 1981. In the instant case according to the learned counsel, admittedly the notice under Sec. 4 is given in 1979 and hence, the period of limitation prescribed by this Act is not attracted in the present petition.12. In the instant case according to the learned counsel, admittedly the notice under Sec. 4 is given in 1979 and hence, the period of limitation prescribed by this Act is not attracted in the present petition.12. Taking into consideration the object of the Act as quoted above and the fact that it has been consistent view under the Central Act that there shall be a period of limitation and land acquisition proceedings shall not linger on for unduly long time, it must be held that the period of limitation applies to other acquisition of land under the Act whether the notice is given prior to the Amendment Act of 1981 or thereafter, the word after the expiry are only illustrative and they applied to proceedings pending for acquisition of land after the commencement of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1931.13. Reference can beneficially be made to the provisions of Sec. 5 of the amending Act which validates certain acquisition but for the validation would have been rendered illegal by the judgment of Vishnu Prasad Sharmas case ( AIR 1966 SC 1593 ) : "Validation of certain acquisitions:- (1) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court to the contrary. (a) no acquisition of land made or purporting to have been made under the principal Act before the commencement of this Act, and no action taken or thing done (including any.... any order made, agreement entered into or notice given) in connection with such acquisition shall be deemed to be invalid or ever to have become invalid merely on the - (i) that one or more Collectors have performed the functions of Collector under the principal Act in respect of the land covered by the same notice under sub-section (5) of Sec. 4 of the principal Act. (ii) that one more reports have been made under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the principal Act, whether in respect of entire land or different parcels thereof, covered by the same notice under sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act; (iii) that one or more declarations have been made under Section 6 of the principal Act, in respect of different parcels of the land covered by the same notice under sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act; (b) any acquisition in pursuance of any notice given under sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act before the commencement of this Act may be made after such commencement and no such acquisition and no action taken or thing done (including any order made, agreement entered into or notice given) whether before or after such commencement, in connection with such acquisition shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the grounds referred to in clause (a) or any of them. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-section (1) no declaration under Section 6 of the principal Act in respect of any land for the acquisition of which notice under section (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act has been given before the commencement of this Act, shall be made after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the said Act." 14. Sub-section 2 also prescribed the limitations. The provisions of Sec. 5 validate and permit any acquisition of land in pursuance of r y notice given under sub-section 5 of Sec. 4 oi the Rajasthan Act before the commencement of the amending Act and it is declared that no such acquisition shall be termed to be invalid merely on the ground mentioned in clause 1. Thereafter, the limitation is prescribed, it very clearly states that no declaration under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Act in respect of any land acquisition of which was noticed under Sec. 4(5) of the Act before the commencement of the amending Act shall be made after the expiry of two years for the commencement of the amending Act. Thereafter, the limitation is prescribed, it very clearly states that no declaration under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Act in respect of any land acquisition of which was noticed under Sec. 4(5) of the Act before the commencement of the amending Act shall be made after the expiry of two years for the commencement of the amending Act. In my opinion, the present case is governed by subsection 2 of Sec. 5 of the amending Act and the period of limitation shall be two years as in the instant case proceedings were commenced before the commencement of the amending Act and a notice under Sec. 4(5) of the Rajasthan Act was issued before 27th June, 1981. Even if it is considered to be a case where the limitation provided by Section 6 is applicable only in relation to cases where notice under Sec. 4(5) is given after the commencement of the amending Act of 1981.15. In any view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the period of limitation shall apply in the present case and it shall be of two years only under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Sec. 5 of the amending Act, 1981, whether it is the limitation of two years or three years. In the circumstances of the present case becomes immaterial as admittedly the notice is given after three years.16. In my opinion, Sec. 6 as amended by the 1961 amending Act thus, provides limitation of three years in cases where the notice under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued, whether such notice is issued before commencement of the amending Act or after the commencement of amending Act is irrelevant. There is therefore, no need to take recourse under the provisions of Sec. 5 of the amending Act, 1981 in any case.17. A perusal of Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Act as also Section 6 of the Central Act will show that initially in both these legislation's, there was no provision for limitation prescribed for declaration under the section. The Central Act was amended in 1967 and the limitation of three years was introduced. Identical amendment was made in the Rajasthan Act by the amending Act, 1981. The Central Act was amended in 1967 and the limitation of three years was introduced. Identical amendment was made in the Rajasthan Act by the amending Act, 1981. A perusal of the amendments and the statement of the objects and reasons for making those amendments proves beyond reasonable doubt with the sole purpose of tho making these amendments was to curtail the period during which acquisition of land can be undertaken undue delay or pendency of acquisition proceedings divides both the purposes of the acquisition, it is to be acquired and hence, this limitation was introduced. The provisions of Sec. 6 of the limitation prescribed thereunder have been considered at several occasions by the Supreme Court of India and it has been consistently held that the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Act applies to all notifications issued under S. 4 of the Central Act. I therefore, see no reason why a different interpretation should be accepted as suggested by Shri. L. R. Metha, learned counsel for the respondents and notifications issued under Sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act prior to the amending Act 1981 be excluded, such interpretation leads to an absurdity as grave such exception is unwarranted.18. Looking to the circumstances in which the amendments have been made and the purposes for which the amendment has been made. I therefore, see no reason in holding that the provisions of Sec. 6 cover every notification under Sec. 4 whether, made before or after the commencement of the amending Act, 1981.19. In the result, therefore the petition succeeds and is allowed. The notifications impugned in this petition issued on 29-6-84 are quashed as illegal and unsustainable in law having been issued and published after the period of limitation prescribed by Section 6 of the Act is over. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will no be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******