JUDGMENT 1. - Since common question of law and facts is involved in these writ petitions they are being disposed of by this common order. Notification under Section 4 dated 6-1-1992 which is the first to initiate the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') was published in the Gazete on 6-2-1992. On 15-2-1992, the said notification was published in the Rajasthan Patrika, on 3-4-1992 in the Nav Bharat Times, thereafter, on 22-4-1992, in the Jalate Deep newspapers. Before the notification was published in the Gazette, affixture on a conspicuous place was made on 22-1-1992 and also on 23-1-1992. After inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by giving due notice to the claimants, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 31-3-1993 and was published in the Gazette on 8-4-1993. The said declaration was thereafter published on 23-4-1993 and 26-4-1993 in the newspapers Dainik Navjyoti and Nav Bharat Times respectively. The notices were issued under Section 9 of the Act for hearing to be taken up on 14-10-1993. Various objections were filed by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer, some of them contended the objection that the Land Acquisition proceedings cannot be proceeded with as the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 was not published in accordance with law. On 28-12-1994, objections were decided by the Land Acquisition Officer and a draft award was sent to the State Government. On 2-3-1995, order was passed on the draft award and thereafter, on 9-3-1995 final award was passed. Before the final award was passed on 9-3-1995 the first petition in the batch of the petitions was filed on 6-3-1995 and was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 751/95. Thereafter, on 18-3-1995 in pursuance of the award, compensation of Rs. 1,09,20,391/- was deposited before the Tehsildar, Pachpadra (Balotra) vide cheque dated 18-3-1995. Thereafter, as per the State respondent the possession of the land was taken by the Tehsildar, Pachpadra under Section 16 of the Act on the instructions of the Land Acquisition Officer and the same was handed over to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Balotra. The taking over of the possession by the respondents is seriously disputed by the petitioners in these petitions. 2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S. Shishodia and Mr. The taking over of the possession by the respondents is seriously disputed by the petitioners in these petitions. 2. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S. Shishodia and Mr. B.L. Purohit that the entire land acquisition proceedings in the matter stands vitiated, on account of the fact, that there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the publication of the notification under Section 4 and the publication of the declaration within the period admissible under the Act. Affixture on the conspicuous place was made prior to publication of the notification in the Gazette. Publication of Section 4 notification in the third newspaper will not be a date of publication of notice under Section 4. On the contrary, Mr. D.S. Rajvi, counsel for the State has submitted at the Court need not go into the merit of the 3seto ascertain whether Section notification said Section 6 declaration were published as enquired under the law because the petitioners + not approached the Court challenging the ratification within reasonable time and after delivery of possession the acquisition proceedings have attained finality. The petitions suffer from serious laches on the part to the petitioners and delay and therefore, the Court should not exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India to set at naught the acquisition which has attained finality. 3. There is a serious dispute between the parties whether the possession of the lands under acquisition was taken. The petitioner's earned counsel has referred the order-sheet of the writ petition No. 751/95. The order-sheet shows that on 6-3-1995 the writ petition was tied in the Court. II appears that the defects pointed out by the office were removed sometime before 9-3-1995. The matter was listed before the Court on 13-3-1995. Mr. Pradeep Shah filed caveat for the respondents. Copy of the petition was supplied to him and lie prayed for time. The matter was directed to to be listed on 15-3-1995 after showing the name of Mr. Pradeep Shah in the cause-list. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 15-3-1995. On 15-3-1995, Mr. Govind Mathur, counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the declaration under Section 6 was made after expiry of one year from the last publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He submitted that on the basis of the draft award dated 28-12-1994, the award has been finalised. On 15-3-1995, Mr. Govind Mathur, counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the declaration under Section 6 was made after expiry of one year from the last publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He submitted that on the basis of the draft award dated 28-12-1994, the award has been finalised. The petitioners have apprehension that they may be dispossessed from the lands in dispute at anytime. He further submitted that earlier entire proceedings was flopped by the Government, therefore, the proceedings taken now is not sustainable. Mr. Shah prayed for two weeks time to file reply. Mr. S.M. Singhvi, Dy. G.A. who was present in he Court accepted notice on the direction of the Court. It was directed to supply him copy of the writ petition along with documents and be prayed for time to file reply. The matter was directed to be put up on 27-3-1995 as prayed for. It would be pertinent to note here that the Court has not passed any order on stay. The matter came up on 27-3-1995. The order-sheet dated 27-3-1995 records that, "Mr. Pradeep Shah submits that he has been informed by the Municipal Board that they are seeking instructions from the Local Self Department, Jaipur and he further states that they will keep status quo as it exists today so far as the petitioners are concerned. He prays for four weeks time to file reply." The respondents have filed document Annex. R/1 Fard Kabja Mauka dated 26-3-1995. The memo of possession records that on 26-3-1995 in pursuance of the order issued by the Addl. District Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Barmer in compliance of the final award dated 9-3-1995 and, in compliance of the order issued dated 10-3-1995, the Tehsildar, Pachpadra along with Patwari, Jasol, Inspector, Jasol, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Balotra, Revenue Officer and Surveyor, Nagar Palika Balotra reached to the spot and delivered possession on the spot to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Balotra. The document is signed by all the officials mentioned in the document. On 26-3-1995, the fact of delivery of possession is recorded in 'ghatnabahi' of the Patwari which was produced and shown to the Court. After the possession has been taken, on 23-7-1995, mutation was made of the lands acquired in the name of Municipal Board, Balotra. The respondents have produced letter dated 23-7-1995 (Annex. On 26-3-1995, the fact of delivery of possession is recorded in 'ghatnabahi' of the Patwari which was produced and shown to the Court. After the possession has been taken, on 23-7-1995, mutation was made of the lands acquired in the name of Municipal Board, Balotra. The respondents have produced letter dated 23-7-1995 (Annex. R/11) addressed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Balotra to Secretary, Maha-Vidhyalaya Bhawan Nirman Samiti, Balotra delivering possession of Khasra No. 650 to 662, 665, 660/1 area 85 bigha 18 biswa (part of land acquired) as per the decision arrived at in the meeting dated 2-5-1995 for the construction of the government-college building. Annex. R/12 is letter showing that the Municipal Board has granted and deposited by cheque an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- for College Building. Annex. R/ 13 is sanction of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- by the D.R.D.A. for the construction of the College building. Tenders have been invited for removal of the bushes from the lands acquired and was published in the Rajasthan Patrika. The document is Annexure 14. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the document Annex R/1 could not be held to be a document of delivery of possession as it does not indicate that the Land Acquisition Officer took possession from the petitioners and, thereafter, handed over the possession to the Nagar Palika, Balotra. Unless possession was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer how could it be delivered to the Nagar Palika. Further, had it been the fact that possession was delivered then it would have found place in the order-sheet 27-3-1995 and, counsel for the Municipal Board would have stated before the Court that possession has already been taken on 26-3-1995 and would not have agreed for keeping status quo as it existed on that date. It is further said that the actual possession is required to be taken and not symbolic possession for the purpose of vesting of the land in the State under Section 16 of the Act. Thus in the nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that no possession was taken on 26-3-1995 and, in any case, it would only be symbolic taking of the possession, therefore, no possession was taken and the lands do not vest in the State.Counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1976 (1) SCC 700 . Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat delivered by 3 Judges Bench. Hon'ble Justice Untwalia, in para 25, has observed as under: "It is, therefore, clear that taking of possession within the meaning of Section 16 or 17(1) means taking of possession on the spot. It is neither a possession on paper nor a "symbolical" possession as generally understood in civil law. But the question is what is the mode of taking possession? The Act is silent on the point. Unless possession is taken by the written agreement of the party concerned the mode of taking possession obviously would be for the authority to go upon the land and to do some act which would indicate that the authority has taken possession of the land. It may be in the form of a declaration by beat of drum or otherwise or by hanging a written declaration on the spot that the authority has taken possession of the land. The presence of the owner or the occupant of the land to effectuate the taking of possession is not necessary." In para 28. Hon'ble Justice Bhagwati has expressed opinion for himself and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gupta as under: "It appears that the appellant was not present when this was done by the Tehsildar, but the presence of the owner or the occupant of the land is not necessary to effectuate the taking of possession." As per their Lordships, delivery of possession cannot be symbolic. It should be actual. The mode of taking possession may differ from the nature of the land. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the decision rendered in 1996 (7) SCC 269 , State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahalaxmi Ammal and has referred to the observations in para 9 of the judgment that, "possession of the acquired land would be taken only by way of a memorandum, Panchanama, which is a legally accepted norm. It would not be possible to take any physical possession", and argued that taking of symbolic possession would be delivery of the possession for the purposes of the Act. 5. I need not go into the question whether actual physical possession is required to be delivered or symbolic possession would constitute delivery of possession required under Section 16 of the Act. As I am of the view that possession of the land in fact was taken by the respondents. When the document Annex. 5. I need not go into the question whether actual physical possession is required to be delivered or symbolic possession would constitute delivery of possession required under Section 16 of the Act. As I am of the view that possession of the land in fact was taken by the respondents. When the document Annex. R/1 indicates that possession has been handed over to the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Balotra that implies that possession stands taken by the Land Acquisition Officer and, thereafter, it was delivered to the Executive Officer. The daily-diary of the Patwari records on the same day that possession was taken and was delivered. The subsequent conduct of handing over the part of the land to the Municipal Board, Balotra for construction of the government-college building, issuance of the tender-notice for clearing the land; acquired coupled with the fact of mutation nil the land clearly indicate that possession in fact and law was taken on 26-3-1995 and delivered. Merely because the counsel appearing in the Court on 27-3-1995 could not inform the Court that possession was taken on 26-3-1995 could not lead to the inference that possession was not taken till that date. It may be the case where the client had not informed his counsel of the fact of taking possession which was so done a day earlier only. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr D.S. Shishodia has vehemently argued that the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of inaction/laches on the part of the petitioners as the petitioners were all-along under the impression that the Government has reached to the decision that acquisition has come to an end by not taking steps of declaration of notification under Section 6 within the time-span prescribed under law and has invited my attention to a letter dated 19-3-1994 Annex. 8 sent by the Addl. Collector/Land Acquisition Officer addressed to the Collector containing that notification under Section 4(1) was Led on 6 -1-1992 and the declaration "or Section 6 was published on 8-4-1993 after lapse of one year, therefore, proceedings in the land acquisition have become illegal and, therefore, it would be just to decide the Sections of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid fact. The letter addressed by the District Collector dated 26-4-1994 Annexure Ho the Deputy Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur wherein it is said that the notification under Section 4(1) dated 6-1-1992 was published in the gazette on 6-2-1992. Thereafter, declaration under section 6 was issued on 31-3-1993 and published on 8-4-1993. Thus the declaration Her Section 6 has been issued after the permissible limit of one year. But, the declaration under Section 6 shows that the publication of the notification under Section 4(l) dated 6-1-1992 has been made on 3-4-1992 and according to that, the proceedings are valid. It is not clear how the publication of the notification is said to be on 3-4-1992 by He Department, therefore, the State Government should take decision in that Lard and directions be issued in regard to the acquisition proceedings. It appears that the objections dated 23-12-1994 by the petitioners Annexure 11 in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 9 also contains the fact that acquisition proceedings have come to an end as publication of the declaration has not been made within the time. The draft award dated 28-12-1994 records that the Land acquisition Officer expresses agreement with the objection of the petitioners that there is gap of more than one year in the period of notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 and Here is slackness on the part of the Local self-Government Department, the District Collector has sought guidance in that regard but no guidance given so far. The proceedings are pending nearly for three years and thus it necessary to proceed with the land acquisition as the award has to be passed within the time bound limit. The Land acquisition Officer proceeded with the inquiry. Issued the draft award dated 28-12-1994 and, Hereafter, final award was passed on 9-3-1995. I have called for the file of the acquisition proceedings and it does not appear from the order-sheet dated 1-7-1994 that at one time decision was taken at the government-level fat the acquisition proceedings have come Juan end because the proceedings have not been taken up within the time-limit. It was directed that steps be taken for initiation of the fresh land acquisition proceedings. But, thereafter, the proceedings were not dropped and the acquisition proceedings were carried on which has resulted in passing of the award and delivery of the possession. 7. It was directed that steps be taken for initiation of the fresh land acquisition proceedings. But, thereafter, the proceedings were not dropped and the acquisition proceedings were carried on which has resulted in passing of the award and delivery of the possession. 7. The aforesaid communications except the draft award appear to be intra-departmental and none of them was communicated to the petitioners. If the petitioners by their own sources came to know that the letters were exchanged at different official levels regarding the acquisition of land and the decision was arrived at to end the acquisition proceedings, and, in spite of that, the officers were proceeding further with the acquisition, then as a reasonable prudent man, the petitioners should have approached the Court immediately and obtained the necessary orders. There is no justification on their part to wait and watch as to what steps the Government will take in the matter of acquisition of the lands when the officials of the Government were proceeding with the acquisition proceedings in spite of the intra-departmental communications. The petitioners cannot be permitted to take shelter behind the inter-departmental communication for not approaching under Section 6 if they had any objection in that regard. Raising objections for proceedings of acquisition in Section 9 proceedings was futile exercise, the Collector had no jurisdiction under Section 9 to declare that the proceedings have come to an end for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides that the Collector shall issue notice to all the persons interested in the lands to be acquired to appear personally or by agent before him and to State the nature of their respective interest in the land and the amount and particulars of their claim to compensation for such interest and their objections, if any, to the measurements made. The question which could be determined by the Collector is in respect of respective interest in the lands, amount and their interest in the compensation and in regard to measurement. The Collector has no authority or jurisdiction to give declaration or pass an order that the land acquisition proceedings have come to end When the petitioners have found that the authorities were proceedings with the case they should have approached the Court. 8. The Collector has no authority or jurisdiction to give declaration or pass an order that the land acquisition proceedings have come to end When the petitioners have found that the authorities were proceedings with the case they should have approached the Court. 8. In 1992 (2) WLC 386 , Jaipur Nagar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of Rajasthan under the facts and circumstances of that case, it has been held that mere fact that publication of the notification in two daily news-papers earlier on the day on which the notification was actually appended and published in the official gazette would not be fatal to the acquisition. In 1992 (3) WLC (Rajasthan) 393. Hawa Singh v. State of Rajasthan , it has been held that the notification under Section 4(1) is not invalid merely because its publication in the local news-paper is prior to publication in the State Gazette. In AIR 1985 SC 1622 . The Collector Distt. Magistrate. Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal . while construing Section 4(1) of the Act the apex Court has said that, " The expression, "such notification" in the latter part of Section 4(1) and sequence of events therein enumerated would clearly spell out that first the Government should reach a decision to acquire land, then publish a notification under Section 4(1) and simultaneously or within a reasonable time from the date of the publication of the notification cause a notice to be published containing substance of such notification meaning thereby that notification which is published. Obviously, therefore, there cannot be a publication in the locality prior to the issuance of the notification.'In 1997 (2) WLC (Raj) 238, Bheru Lal and 43 others v. State of Rajasthan , para 8, it has been held as under; "The notification is a clear expression of a decision of the Government to acquire land, unless the decision is notified in the Gazette, the proceedings for acquisition cannot be said to have been notified and the decision would not come into effect. Section 4(1) further requires that the said notification be published in two daily newspapers and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Section 4(1) further requires that the said notification be published in two daily newspapers and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. The expression 'such notification' in the later part of Section 4(1) clearly spells out that the Govt, has reached to a decision to acquire land, and publish the notification under Section 4(1) in the Official Gazette and then simultaneous of the publication, or within a reasonable time from the date of publication of the notification in the Gazette cause a notice to be published containing the substance of such notification in two daily newspapers and by affixture. It is manifest from Section 4 that publication of notification in the newspapers or the publication of the substance of such notification by the Collector cannot precede the Gazette Notification. The notification should either be issued simultaneously or within a reasonable time after the publication of the Gazette Notification " In AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 342, Principal Secretary to Govt. Housing Municipal Administration and Urban Development Deptt. Hyderabad v. Smt. Chilkala Adilakshmamma , in the judgment delivered by Hon'ble J.C. Reddy, J., as he then was it has been held that the publication in the official gazette of the notification under Section 4 should always be the first step and thereafter the Collector should publish the notification in two newspapers and the publication by affixture. In AIR 1990 All 1 , it has been held that the notification for acquisition of the land would not be invalidated merely because the Collector causes publication of the substance of the notification prior to the issuance of the notification in the Gazette or publication in the news-papers. 9. From the aforesaid statement of law in various decisions, it could not have been possible for the petitioners to take firm stand that the mandatory requirements of Section 4 of the Act were not complied with in publication of the notice under Section 4 and declaration was made beyond the permissible time. It may also be seen that the notification under Section 4 was; published in the third news-paper on 22-04-1992 whereas Section 6 declaration was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 8-4-93. It may also be seen that the notification under Section 4 was; published in the third news-paper on 22-04-1992 whereas Section 6 declaration was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 8-4-93. If the publication of the notification in the newspaper dated 22-4-92 was taken to be the last date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 then the declaration under Section 6 would certainly be within the period of one year but then the question would always be open for the consideration whether as soon as the notification has been published in two newspapers as required under Section 4 the notification shall be taken to have been published in compliance with Section 4 of the Act and publication in the third would not give fresh period. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the publication made in two newspapers was not in accordance with the requirement of Section 4, the publication being required to be made in the news-paper having; circulation in the locality. Thus the question would not be free from doubt and would require adjudication by the Competent Court as to the notification published under Section 44 Section 6 were in accordance with law and her the non-compliance of the mandatory visions vitiates the entire proceedings. Inaction on the part of the petitioners in not reaching the Court immediately after the declaration of Section 6 and waiting till after the approval of the draft-award was made, cannot said to be an action taken with promptitude. The person who sleeps over his right cannot he helped by the Court particularly in the a ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226. 10. It is well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and en all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final the Court would be slow to quash the notification. The High Court has no doubt the discretionary powers under Article 226 to quash the notifications under Section 4 and declaration under section 6 but it should take all relevant facts into pragmatic consideration before exercising that diction. Once possession was taken and land vested in the State, the title to the end so vested in the State is subject only to termination of the compensation and to pay same to the owner divested of his title to e land. Once possession was taken and land vested in the State, the title to the end so vested in the State is subject only to termination of the compensation and to pay same to the owner divested of his title to e land. As I have already held that actual physical possession of the land was taken from tie petitioners after the award is passed, the lands in question shall stand vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances under Section 16 of the Act. Divesting the title to he land statutorily vested in the Government and reverting the same to the owner is not contemplated under the Act. Only Section 48(1) jives power to withdraw from the acquisition jut, that too, possession is taken. Once the and is vested in the State free from all encumbrances it would not be proper for the Court to quash the notification under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act. Reference is made to Sanjeevnagar Medical & Health Employees Co-operative Housing Society v. Mohammed Abdul Wahab 1996 (3) SCC 600 , Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. 1993 (4) SCC 369 , Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. (industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1996 (II) SCC 501. In 1996 (11) SCC 501 (supra), on consideration of the entire case law it has been held by the apex Court that once the land was rested in the State the Court was not justified in interfering with the notification published under appropriate provisions of the Act and a delay in challenging the notification was fatal and the writ deserved dismissal on the ground of laches. In State of Rajasthan v. D. R. Laxmi 1996 (6) SCC 445 , it has been held that when the award was passed and possession was taken the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award, completion of acquisition is material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third-party right was created in the case is hardly a ground. The consistent view of the apex Court is that when the acquisition is permitted to attain finality on account of delay or laches on the part of the petitioner, the Court should not go to the aid of the petitioner for quashing the notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 or the award. 11. The consistent view of the apex Court is that when the acquisition is permitted to attain finality on account of delay or laches on the part of the petitioner, the Court should not go to the aid of the petitioner for quashing the notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 or the award. 11. For the reasons stated above, the petitions fail on account of laches and delay on the part of the petitioners. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******