JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard. 2. Perused the materials available on record. 3. By filing the present petition, the petitioners are seeking relief to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 3.2.1997, published in 'Rajasthan Rajpatra' dated 19.12.1997, and in daily newspaper 'Rashtradoot' and 'Danik Navjyoti' dated 19.12.1997 and 11.7.1998 respectively, inter-alia on the ground that the respondent No.5, is a Housing Co-operative Society, having its registration No.2555 L, duly registered by the Co-operative Societies Department, State of Rajasthan, whereas the petitioners are its allottees. 4. It is averred in para 14 of the petition, that the respondent No.5, acquired about 300 bighas of land and floated scheme No.4. The society purchased land measuring 46 bighas from Sarva Shri Daya Chand, Lallu, Ramswaroop, Sankar and Kailash S/o Shri Narayan, village Machra, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. The above stated land measuring 46 bighas 12 biswas form part of khasra No.405. The aforesaid land was purchased through agreement by the society and consequent thereupon the plots were allotted to its members including the petitioners. 5. It is to be noticed that although the present writ petition is founded on the basis of agreement for sale, executed in favour of respondent No.5, but the agreement itself has not been placed on record. 6. After service of notice on the respondents, a detailed reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. 7. The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the present petition. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the petitioners have no locus standi to file present writ petition. In support of his aforesaid contention, he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in case of (1) Krishan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and others versus Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and others, reported in 1993(3) WLC 583. 8. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate General that against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the original khatedars and their legal representatives have filed al reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relating to khasra No.405, village Machra, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 8. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate General that against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the original khatedars and their legal representatives have filed al reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relating to khasra No.405, village Machra, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. It is urged that Land Acquisition Officer (ADM II) has passed an award against which a reference under Section 18 of the said Act, is pending consideration before Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact, regarding title of khasra No.405, village Machra, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, which cannot be gone into under Article 226 of The Constitution. 9. The learned counsel, Shri Bharat Vyas, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, refuted the aforesaid arguments and invited my attention to Section 19(B) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, together with Section 54(B) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at tha Bar. 11. Indisputably, the housing society, respondent No.5, entered into agreement for sale, with the original khatedars of the agricultural land of khasra No.405 of village Machra, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, which is not followed by a registered sale deed, as envisaged under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, uptil date. 12. It is to be noted that under Section 54 of the Transfer of the Property Act, if transfer in case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made, it can be made only by a registred instrument. It is to be noticed that the aforesaid section further provides that mere agreement for sale of immoveable property does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. In the present case, indisputably, the value of the land in dispute is more than, lacs, therefore, neither respondent No.5 nor its allottees can be said to be "person interested", to question the notification published under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. 13. In the present case, indisputably, the value of the land in dispute is more than, lacs, therefore, neither respondent No.5 nor its allottees can be said to be "person interested", to question the notification published under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. 13. To my mind neither respondent No.5, the housing society nor its allottees, present petitioners fall within the definition of the "person interested" as defined under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. 14. I am fortified in taking the aforesaid view, from the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in case of Krishan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others (supra). My aforesaid view is also buttressed from the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, in case of (2) Dhirajbhai Thakoribhai Patel & others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Siran & other 1989 LACC 591. 15. It is pertinent to mention that an identical question came up before me in case of (3) Lankapuri Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Raj. Gau Sewa Sangh and Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5369/1996) decided on 7.12.2000 [reported in 2001(1) RLR 125 ] , wherein the same view is taken, by me which is being taken in the present case.Upshot, of the aforesaid discussion, is that the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine. *******