JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions u/Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed with a prayer that the proceedings before the Additional Collector, Udaipur in Land Acquisition Case No. 5/81 be declared illegal and invalid and the awards passed on 15.12.1987 be quashed. 2. The undisputed facts are these. A notification under Section 52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (in short the Act of 1959) was issued by the State Govt. on 5.3.1973, published in Official Gazette on 15.3.1973, inviting objections as to the acquisition of the various lands including the lands of the petitioner situate in village Khera Sabina. Thereafter notification under Section 52(1) was published on 27.1.1977 and notices were issued for determination of the compensation. The Addl. Collector vide order dated 15.12.1987 passed awards in favour of the Khatedars including the petitioners. 3. It has been averred in the writ petitions that the Addl. Collector had no jurisdiction to proceed with the acquisition proceedings as on the coming into force of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 3.1.1987, only Collector could hold the acquisition proceedings. It has been further averred in Writ Petition No. 894/88 that Chhaganlal, original Khatedar had died on 14.1.1987 and, therefore, the award passed in his name is a nullity. It has been stated that Chhaganlal had sold his land with the permission of the Improvement Trust but the vendees who had purchased the land from Chhaganlal were not brought on record. 4. In the reply filed by the Improvement Trust in Writ Petition No. 3702/88, it has been averred that with the publication of the notice under Section 52(1) in official Gazette on 27.1.1977 the land in question vested absolutely in the State Government and, therefore, objections taken in the writ petition are of no consequence. It has also been stated that the Additional Collector has awarded compensation on the basis of the market value prevailing on 27.2.1987 and therefore the award is beneficial to the Khatedar-petitioners. 5. The serious contention of Mr. Maheshwari was that the proceedings of acquisition were started by the Additional Collector under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 and he continued to hold the proceedings even after the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 became applicable. 5. The serious contention of Mr. Maheshwari was that the proceedings of acquisition were started by the Additional Collector under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 and he continued to hold the proceedings even after the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 became applicable. According to him, under the Act of 1894 only the Collector was empowered to perform functions of the Land Acquisition Officer and as in the instant case Additional Collector has passed the award it is without jurisdiction. 6. Mr. Kawadia, on the other hand, contended that the land had vested in the State Government when the notification u /s. 52(1) of the Act of 1959 was issued and, therefore, even assuming some irregularities in the proceedings the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed. He submitted that the Additional Collector acts on behalf of the Collector and therefore, the proceedings held by the Additional Collector cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. In this connection he referred to the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 7. Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 defines 'Collector' as under:- "(c) the expression "Collector" means the Collector of a district, and inc-lodes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act." 8. In the Scheme of the Act of 1894 the Collector has been empowered to hold the Acquisition proceedings. Any person other than the Collector can also perform functions of the Collector under the Act if he is specially appointed by the appropriate Government. 9. 'Collector' has also been defined in Section 5(7) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which is to the following effect : "(7) Collector shall mean a Collector or an Additional Collector appointed under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949, or under any other law for the time being in force." 10. Thus according to the definition given in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the Additional Collector is also included in the definition of Collector. It was not disputed that the Additional Collector who held the proceedings was appointed under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949. The word "Collector" in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be understood to mean only the person who holds the post of Collector. Any person appointed to perform the functions of the Collector, is also included in the definition. It was not disputed that the Additional Collector who held the proceedings was appointed under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949. The word "Collector" in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be understood to mean only the person who holds the post of Collector. Any person appointed to perform the functions of the Collector, is also included in the definition. The Additional Collector is certainly such a person who performs the function of the Collector. In my opinion, the Addl. Collector should be held to be the Collector for the purposes of Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by Mr. Maheshwari. 11. Apart from this, it is settled legal position that with the publication of the notification under Section 52(1) land vests in the State free from all encumbrances by virtue of sub-Section (4) : Vide Pratap v. The State of Raj., (1996) 2 JT (SC) 759 . When once the land stood vested in the State Government, the acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of some irregularities. It has been held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case that neither the amendments nor the extension of the Central Act can have the effect, in law or otherwise, of divesting the State of ownership of the land which had already vested in it. This being the legal position, even if it is accepted that the Additional Collector could not hold further acquisition proceedings after the provisions of the Act of 1894 were made applicable, the acquisition proceedings or the award cannot be quashed. 12. In the case of Omprakash v. State of Raj., 1996 (1) WLC 483 (Raj.) the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer was challenged on the ground that award could only be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and not by S.D.M.-cum-Collector, Land Acquisition Officer. This contention was repelled mainly on the ground that once the land had vested in the State Government that objection was of little significance. 13. Thus there is no merit in the first contention of Mr. Maheshwari. 14. The second contention of Mr. Maheshwari was that Chhaganlal, Khatedar of land bearing Khasra No. 216 had died on 16.1.1987 and, therefore, award could not be passed after his death. 13. Thus there is no merit in the first contention of Mr. Maheshwari. 14. The second contention of Mr. Maheshwari was that Chhaganlal, Khatedar of land bearing Khasra No. 216 had died on 16.1.1987 and, therefore, award could not be passed after his death. It is not on record that the factum of death was made known to the Additional Collector who passed the award Anx. 5. When this fact was not brought to the notice of the Additional Collector, it cannot be said that the away as ecome a nullity. It is not in dispute that Chhaganlal was served with notice Anx. 3. He did not file objection and, therefore, the Additional Collector was perfectly justified in passing the award. 15. The third contention of Mr. Maheshwari was that Chhagan had already sold the land with the permission of the Improvement Trust and, therefore, the names of the vendees should have been brought on record. The Improvement Trust had given permission Anx. 4 subject to the conditions that the permission would not affect adversely the acquisition proceedings which were in respect of land Khasra No. 216 and it would be the risk of the vendee. If any person purchases land after issuance of the notification under Section 52(1) i.e. after the land is vested in the State Government it is his risk and there is absolutely no need to serve notice to such vendee. 16. Lastly, it was submitted by Mr. Maheshwari that after the issuance of the notification, some lands have been left out by the State Government and the petitioner has been discriminated. It is the discretion of the State Government to acquire the land which is necessary and suitable for public purposes. In the case of Yadunandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 520 , it has been held by the Apex Court that the wrong exemption under wrong action taken by the authorities will not clothe others to get the same benefit and Article 14 cannot be pressed into service on the ground of invidious discrimination. 17. No other point was pressed before me. 18. Consequently, there is no merit in both these writ petitions which are hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******