JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for both the parties. 2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant to quash the Notification dated 01st January, 1992, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure-2) and the Notification dated 7th January, 1993, under Section 6 of the said Act (Annexure-3) . In the writ petition the appellant also challenged the Award dated 03/07/1993, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Alwar (Annexure-4) including the letter dated 22/05/2000 (Annexure-5) 3. In the writ petition, the appellant has only impleaded the Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, through its Secretary and the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar as parties. 4. A reply was filed on behalf of the respondents, stating that the land was being acquired by the State Government through the Land Acquisition Officer and not by the Urban Improvement Trust and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the appellant without impleading the State Government as a party, is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed with costs. However, this contention was raised by the respondents in their reply, but the learned single Judge has not expressed any opinion on the said contention and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, on the ground of delay and latches. 5. The Notification was issued on 01/01/1992, the Award was passed on 03/07/1993 and the appellant filed the writ petition only on 01/06/2000, after a delay of about 7 years. An argument was advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no personal knowledge about the land acquisition proceedings and, therefore, the appellant could not contest the matter and appear before the authorities concerned. Learned counsel for the appellant is not right in his statement as the Notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published in the Government Gazette, in the news papers and also at public places. No personal notice is contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under such situation the appellant ought to have challenged the land acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time. The writ petition, in our opinion, was also not maintainable since the appellant has not impleaded the State Government which initiated the land acquisition proceedings. 6. No personal notice is contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under such situation the appellant ought to have challenged the land acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time. The writ petition, in our opinion, was also not maintainable since the appellant has not impleaded the State Government which initiated the land acquisition proceedings. 6. It is now represented by learned counsel for the respondents that the possession has already been taken pursuant to the Award passed and the entire compensation has already been deposited with the Court of Civil Judge, Alwar. So, if the petitioner appellant is aggrieved against the compensation awarded, it is always open to the appellant to file a petition and seek order of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides that if person interested who has not accepted the award or the amendment thereof, may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the amount of the costs allowed, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. 7. Therefore, it is open to the appellant to seek remedy available under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and if any such remedy is sought by the appellant, the concerned authorities may consider the same on merits and pass an order for reference, if the circumstances so warrant.The appeal is dismissed accordingly.SPL. Appeal Dismissed. *******