JUDGMENT 1. 1. All the above special appeals (writ) filed under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinances, 1949 are being decided by this common judgment as they have been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.3.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and common questions of law and facts arise in all of them. 2. First we would consider the special appeals (from Nos. 1 to 6) filed by the appellants-petitioners. 3. The facts giving rise to these special appeals, in short, are as follows:- The appellants-petitioners are the owners of the lands situated in the City of Udaipur. The respondents prepared ambitious scheme of 500 bighas of land known as "Madri Purohitan Extension Scheme" to provide residential accommodation to the citizens. For that purpose, a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1894') was issued on 28.10.1988, which was published in the official gazette on 21.6.1990. Thereafter, declaration as contemplated under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 17.11.1989, which was published in the official gazette on 6.12.1990. Notices under section 9 of the Act of 1894 inviting claims for compensation were issued on 9.11.1990. Thereafter, many writ petitions were filed by the petitioners-appellants before this Court challenging acquisition proceedings of the lands in question. In these writ petitions, various grounds challenging the land acquisition proceedings known as Madri Purohitan Extension Scheme for residential accommodation, were taken by the petitioners-appellants and most important among them were as follows:- 1. That no scheme was framed prior to the issue of the Notification. 2. That the acquisition has not been made for any publit purpose inasmuch as the purpose has been changed after the issuance of the Notification. 3. That the record of the enquiry was not forwarded to the Government and, therefore, the Government had no occasion to consider the objections raised by the petitioners and there was violation of Section. 4. That the declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made before the publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894. 5. That the substance of the Notification under section 4 was not published in the locality. 4. 4. That the declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made before the publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894. 5. That the substance of the Notification under section 4 was not published in the locality. 4. Besides the above grounds, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 266/91, the petitioner-appellant of that case also took another ground to the effect that he has developed his lands as unique horticulture farm and therein he has grown thousands of fruit plants besides Neem, Babool, Sandal, Chameli and Bamboo trees. Therefore, it was averred in that writ petition that the water available in the well dug on the land is salty good for agriculture but unfit for human consumption as it is polluted due to regular discharge of effluents in the earth by the pesticides India, Udaipur Distillery and Reliance Chemotax Factory situated at some distance. It was further averred in that writ petition by the petitioner-appellant that he has invested lacs of rupees in digging of well, levelling the land, construction of `pucca' boundary wall etc. and the horticulture farm developed by him comes in the category of `City Forest' and thus, that land was not fit for residential purposes. 5. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that the Scheme for which acquisition proceedings were initiated, consists of 500 bighas of land and in most of the cases, awards have been passed, land owners have got compensation, possession of the lands has been taken by the concerned authorities and more than 200 quarters have been constructed for providing residential accommodation to the persons for whom lands were acquired. It was further stated in the reply that Town Planning Department is the best person to judge whether the land is fit for residential purposes or not and all the objections upon which acquisition proceedings have been 5 challenged by the appellants-petitioners have been negatived by respondents in the reply. 6. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Chief Justice) vide order dated 15.5.1992 allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants and declared the Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 as invalid. 6. Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Chief Justice) vide order dated 15.5.1992 allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants and declared the Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 as invalid. Against the said order dated 15.5.1992, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur filed special appeals before this Court and the same were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.3.1996 and the order dated 15.5.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Chief Justice) was set aside and the cases were remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions in accordance with law. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 10.3.1998 was passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions and the same has been challenged in these special appeals. 7. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Chief Justice) in his order dated 15.5.1992 has held that since the proceedings of acquisition were initiated without framing the Scheme, which is a sine qua non for initiation of the acquisition proceedings, therefore, on this ground, acquisition proceedings were quashed by the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Chief Justice). However, the Division Bench of this Court in D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 585/93 (Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Jaswant Raj and anr. and 9 other Special Appeals decided on 21.3.1996) did not appreciate that observation and held that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap and anr. v. State of Rajasthan and ors., 1996 (2) SCC 533 held that even if there is no scheme prepared. acquisition could be validly made under the provisions of the Act of 1894 for a public purpose, therefore, preparation of Scheme is not a sine qua non for initiation of the acquisition proceedings. This point has been reiterated here because it is also one of the grounds taken by the appellants-petitioners in these special appeals. 8. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 10.3.1998 decided as all the contentions which were raised before him in the following manner:- 1. This point has been reiterated here because it is also one of the grounds taken by the appellants-petitioners in these special appeals. 8. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 10.3.1998 decided as all the contentions which were raised before him in the following manner:- 1. That so far as the challenge on the ground of non-preparation of Scheme before issuance of notification is concerned, the learned Single Judge in para 9 of the judgment held that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 585/93 (Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Jaswant Raj & anr. and 9 other Special Appeals decided on 21.3.1996) , acquisition proceedings cannot be called in question on the ground that scheme was not prepared. Thus, this argument was rejected by the learned Single Judge in this manner. The details have been given in preceding para 7 of this judgment. 2. That another point which was raised before the learned Single Judge was that acquisition has not been made for any public purpose, inasmuch as, purpose has been changed after the issuance of the Notification. The learned Single Judge in para 11 of his impugned judgment relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rudhradhar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 3457 held that it is settled law that the land acquired for public purpose can be transferred to another public purpose. The learned Single Judge further held that in the present case, there is not even transfer of purpose for which the land was notified to be acquired and in the Notification by mistake the name of `Transport Nagar' was mentioned, but immediately after the mistake was noticed, a corrigendum was issued stating that the purpose of acquisition was the `Madri Purohitan Extension Scheme'. Thus, the learned Single Judge negatived this argument also. 3. That another argument which was taken by the appellants-petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the record of the enquiry was not forwarded to the Government, tnerefore, Government had no occasion to consider the objections raised by the appellants-petitioners and there was violation of Section 5A of the Act of 1894. 3. That another argument which was taken by the appellants-petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the record of the enquiry was not forwarded to the Government, tnerefore, Government had no occasion to consider the objections raised by the appellants-petitioners and there was violation of Section 5A of the Act of 1894. The learned Single Judge dealt with this argument in paras 12 to 15 of his impugned judgment stating that there is a presumption in favour of official activities and there is nothing on record to hold that record of the enquiry under section 5A was not forwarded to the State Government and the State Government did not have an opportunity to form an opinion about the continuance of acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge held that when it is not on record that the State Government ever complained that the record was not sent, it cannot be presumed that record had not been forwarded along with the report under section 5A of the Act of 1894. Thus, this argument was also negatived by the learned Single Judge. 4. The next argument, which was raised before the learned Single Judge, was that declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made prior to the date of publication of Notification under section 4, which, according to the learned counsel for the appellants- petitioners, vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge has dealt with this argument in paras 16 to 24 of his impugned judgment stating that admitted position is that Notification under section 4(1) was issued on 28.10.1988 and it was published in the official gazette on 21.6.1990. The declaration under section 6 was issued on 17.11.1989 and it was published in the official gazette on 6.12.1990. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Markand Singh, JT 1995(1) SC 487 held that it cannot be accepted that it is the date on which the declaration was issued by the State Government which is relevant under section 6(1) and its proviso, rather it is the date on which the declaration under section 6 is published in the official gazette which is relevant. The learned Single Judge further held that since the declaration under section 6 was published in the official gazette on 6.12.1990 i.e. after the date of publication of the Notification under section 4 on 21.6.1990 in the official gazette, therefore, contention that declaration contemplated under section 6(1) was made before the publication of the Notification under section 4(1) is wrong. Thus, the learned Single Judge also negatived this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners. 5. Another argument which was raised before the learned Single Judge by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioner was that substance of the Notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894 was not published at the convenient places in the locality. This aspect was discussed and considered by the learned Single Judge in paras 25 to 35 and of his impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge first pointed out one defect in the so-called land acquisition proceedings and the same is that Collector did not cause public notice of the substance of the Notification to be given at convenient places in the locality, but non-compliance of this was not found favourable to the appellants-petitioners. The learned Single Judge observed that after the Notification under section 4(1) was issued and published in the newspapers, the Collector gave individual notices to all the owners of the land inviting objections against the acquisition, which were received by them and these notices have also been placed on record. The learned Single Judge further observed that the purpose behind publication of notice in the locality was to enable persons interested to file objections about the acquisition proceedings under section SA and this purpose was served when individual notices were sent to all the persons interested in the land. As a matter of fact, a better mode though not provided in Section 4 was adopted in this case. When it is not alleged that prejudice was caused to the petitioners, it cannot be proper to quash the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge further observed that acquisition proceedings have made such headway and even awards have been passed in many cases and possession of many big has of land has been taken by the respondents on which quarters have been constructed. The learned Single Judge further observed that acquisition proceedings have made such headway and even awards have been passed in many cases and possession of many big has of land has been taken by the respondents on which quarters have been constructed. Therefore, taking all these facts into consideration, the learned Single Judge held that it would not be proper to quash the acquisition proceedings on the technical ground that one of the modes of publication of the Notification was not adopted and thus, he has also rejected this contention. 6. So far as the contention in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 256/91 is concerned, learned Single Judge dealt with the same in paras 38 & 39 of his impugned judgment and observed that it will be for the authorities concerned to take necessary steps to provide water to the residents fit for human consumption and argument that these houses were not proper for residential accommodation was also not found favour with the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also observed that Notification under section 4(1) dated 28.10.1988, which was published in the official gazette on 21.6.1990 shall be deemed to be one dated 21.6.1993 and the market value of the land for acquisition shall be determined with reference to that date. With the aforesaid observations, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions vide order dated 10.3.1998. 9. Aggrieved from the said order dated 10.3.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge, these special appeals have been filed by the appellants-petitioners as well as the State of Rajasthan.Special Appeals of original petitioners-appellants. 10. In the special appeals filed by the appellants- petitioners (from No. 1 to 6), the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners raised the same so contentions which were raised before the learned Single Judge, which have been dealt with in the preceding paras of this judgment. 11. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge in his order dated 10.3.1998 has dealt with all the contentions, which were raised by the petitioners-appellants, meticulously and minutely and relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions which are quoted in his order, answered each of them categorically and thus, it cannot be said that findings of the learned Single Judge on the contentions raised by the appellants-petitioners are erroneous one, requirinig interference by this Court in special appeals. 12. 12. The main contention, which was agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners before us, is that the acquisition proceedings should be declared null and void because the declaration under section 6 was made before the publication of the Notification under section 4. This contention was negatived by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishi Upaj Mandi's case (supra). We see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- petitioner in D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 492/98 submitted that since the appellant-petitioner has developed his horticulture farm which comes in the category of City Forest and the land of forest cannot be utilised for non- forest purposes and scheme of housing cannot be termed as the scheme for forest purposes, therefore, acquisition proceedings should be declared null and void. This argument was dealt with by the learned Single Judge elaborately in para Nos. 38 and 39 of the judgment and it was not found favour by the learned Single Judge and we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the said argument is also not tenable. 14. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good or valid ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.3.1998 of the learned Single Judge in these special appeals. Hence, the special appeals of the appellants- petitioners (from Nos. 1 to 6) are liable to be dismissed.Special Appeals of the State of Rajasthan 15. In the special appeals (from No. 7 to 18) filed by the State of Rajasthan, it has been contended by Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General that though the learned Single Judge observed that Notification under section 4(1) was published in the official gazette on 21.6.1990, but he held that it will be deemed to be one dated 21.6.1993 and present appellants-petitioners would be entitled to get compensation at the market value of the land which was prevalent on 21.6.1993, and thus, he has submitted that the relevant date should have been 21.6.1990 and not 21.6.1993, as observed by the learned Single Judge and this aspect of the judgment of the learned Single Judge should be set aside. 16. 16. The learned Single Judge, before parting with his impugned judgment, also observed for providing higher compensation to the petitioner-appellants that Notification under section 4(1) dated 28.10.1998, which was published in the official gazette on 21.6.1990, shall be deemed to be one dated 21.6.1990, shall be deemed to be one dated 21.6.1993 and thus, enhanced the date of Notification by three years for purposes of calculating the market value of the land. The learned Single Judge made the above observations relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Raj Kumar Johri and ors., AIR 1992 SC 1538 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded the law in the following manner:-- "Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894). S. 4 Notification for acquisition-Purpose, scheme framed under M.P Adhiniyam, 1973 Pre-conditions under M.P Adhiniyam for completing Scheme not complied with- However as there was no mala fide in framing of scheme-And considering the fact that if acquisition is not made land-owners would enjoy benefit on account of development of neighbouring area made under Scheme or if reacquisition is made they would claim higher compensation -Supreme Court did not quash the notification but enhanced the date of notification by 3 years for purposes of calculating market value." 17. Thus, in the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not quash the notification, but allowed the acquisition to remain subject to the condition that notification under section 4(1) of the Act which was issued in that case on 1.1.1985 shall be deemed to be one dated 1,1.1988 and the market value of the land for the acquisition shall be determined with reference to that date. 18. On the same analogy, the learned Single Judge in the present case enhanced the date of Notification from 21.6.1990 to 21.6.1993 for purposes of calculating the market value of the land. In our considered opinion, in doing so, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error and his observations are based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran's case (supra). 19. Hence, the above argument of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan stands rejected. 20. Thus, the special appeals (from Nos. 19. Hence, the above argument of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan stands rejected. 20. Thus, the special appeals (from Nos. 7 to 18) filed by the State of Rajasthan are also liable to be dismissed.In the result, all the above special appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******