JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. These four appeals arise out of the proceedings initiated for acquisition of land in question belonging to the appellants by the publication of Notification dated 10.4.89 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is alleged that no publication of the notification in two daily news papers circulating in the locality of which one ought to be in the regional language, were published and that publication was also not made by causing the substance of such notification to be given at convenient place in the locality in which the land sought to be acquired. 3. The appellants raised objection to this effect before the officer purporting to act as Collector, for the purpose of the said acquisition viz. the Assistant Town Planner of the Urban Improvement Trust, Sriganganagar and consequent to his report a declaration under Section 6 was made, which also according to the petitioner-appellant was not duly published in the manner provided under Section 6. It was the case of the petitioners that only a news item about the proposed acquisition appeared in Seema Sandesh but notification itself was not published and the substance of the notice was not caused to be published at convenient place in the concerned locality. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 29.6.90, which is Ann. 5 to the writ petition filed in July, 1990. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of respondents on 22.6.1995. The amendment application for raising additional grounds in support of the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings were filed in all the writ petitions. We find that by an order dated 24.7.1988 passed in the writ petition No. 3180/90 Jeet Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. the application for amendment was allowed. The amended writ petitions which had also been filed with the amendment applications. The petitions were heard together. The leading Judgment was delivered in writ petition No. 3180/90 Meet Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others and the writ petition was dismissed. The order of dismissal was passed in the other three writ petitions by following the judgment rendered in Meet Singh's case on 7th December, 1999. 4. It is in aforesaid circumstances that these four appeals were filed. The order of dismissal was passed in the other three writ petitions by following the judgment rendered in Meet Singh's case on 7th December, 1999. 4. It is in aforesaid circumstances that these four appeals were filed. It is submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in not considering the facts and grounds raised by way of amending writ petition and which have not been rebutted by the respondents, inasmuch as no reply to amended writ petition was filed; after the amendment was allowed by the learned judge. Noticing the above ground reply to amended writ petition was permitted to be filed in appeals. 5. We shall notice the contentions that have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeals presently. Firstly, it was 4 contended that the proceedings for acquiring the land of petitioners was not bonafide and not for the purpose for which it is purported to be required by the respondents. In support of this contention, checkered history of attempts made for acquiring the land in question and the other land since 1981 were referred to. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that in the first instance 4 an attempt was made by the U.I.T., Sriganganagar to acquire the land of 61 land holders (joint land holders of any piece of land are considered to be one land holder for the purpose of counting the heads). In the first instance vide letter dated 26.2.79, the Administrator, Municipal Council, Sriganganagar had requested the Collector, Sriganganagar for acquiring the land referred in that s letter and in pursuance of that request the first notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 23.4.1980, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 25th September, 1980. While enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was pending, to enquiry into objections raised against the acquisition before issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on request made by the Land Acquisition Officer the notices under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act were issued for acquiring the land by invoking Section 17(4) without determination of compensation for taking the possession of the land in question. This led to filling of 61 writ petitions before this Court in 1981. In the said group of 61 cases viz. This led to filling of 61 writ petitions before this Court in 1981. In the said group of 61 cases viz. Charan Singh v. S.D.O. and Others S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1314/1981 and other cases this court vide its order dated 6.5.1983 found resort to Section 17(4) of the Act to be invalid, and quashed the proceedings under Section 17(4) of the Act. The court directed that before making any declaration under Section 6 of the Act requirement of holding any enquiry into objections under Section 5(A) be complied with. It appears that meanwhile the proceedings commenced in 1980 lapsed. 6. Thereafter out of the land sought to be acquired in 1980, fresh proceedings were initiated by the U.I.T. under Section 52 of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959 and notices were issued to the only 10 lands holders out of 61 lands holders, whose land was sought to be acquired under the notification of 1980. These proceedings were also found to be bad by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 813/87 Jeet Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. alongwith 9 other cases vide its order dated 26th October, 1988. 7. in the third attempt the present proceedings were initiated. The Notification under Section 4 referred to above issued on 10.4.1989. The land was purported to be acquired for the purposes of implementing Basant Vihar Scheme. The last attempt has been made only in respect of the land held by the petitioners in the four writ petitions. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it has been urged by Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the appellants, that the successive efforts have been made to acquire large chunk of land for vague and incohate purposes, which were never intended to be implemented and reduction of required land in successive acquisition proceedings, ultimately zeroing down to the land of the petitioners in the present four petitions only, alongwith history of abandonment of most of the schemes. named earlier, leads to a reasonable interference that real need for acquisition for any public purpose does not exist, but the land in question is being acquired for some ulterior motive. named earlier, leads to a reasonable interference that real need for acquisition for any public purpose does not exist, but the land in question is being acquired for some ulterior motive. In this connection it is also sought to be urged that number of projects were floated and almost and all of said projects were abandoned during the period but only the project for which the land belonging to the petitioners was sought to be acquired has been kept alive. It was also urged in this connection that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were withdrawn by respondents in respect of the land over which unauthorised constructions have been raised by regularising such encroachment. On the one hand instead of dealing firmly with encroachments, the respondents have clothed the illegalities with blessing of regularity, on the other hand the land of petitioner is successively being subjected to fresh acquisition proceedings. In these circumstances, it was urged by the learned counsel for the appelalnts that a clear case of malice in law is made out. 9. The second contention raised by the appellants in this case relates to the failure on the part of the respondents to make publication of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 in the modes prescribed under the respective provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is now not in dispute before us after hearing of the arguments and showing the relevant documents about publication of the notification in different modes that a wide publicity under Section 4 was duly made in two news papers which are circulated in the locality but the officer purporting to act as Collector/Land Acquisition Officer has not required to be caused public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient place in locality in which land sought to be acquired is situate. Likewise, declaration under Section 6, the satisfaction of the State Govt. that the land is needed to be acquired for a public purpose, has duly been published in the Rajasthan Gazette as well as in two news paper viz Seema Sandesh and Pratap Keshari but the same has not been caused to be published in the locality. Thus publication in third mode has not been made in respect of bcth the Notification. and the declaration. Thus publication in third mode has not been made in respect of bcth the Notification. and the declaration. It has been 1 contended by the learned counsel for the respondents in this behalf that proceedings having initiated, the non-publication, in one of the mode, is mere irregularity and shall not affect validity of the acquisition proceedings as such. It was urged that only relevance of publishing the notice/declaration in all the three modes is for the purpose of counting the limitation for next step. It was pointed out that the declaration under Section 6 is within limitation from the date of last publication of notification under Section 4 in the two modes which are admitted to be duly followed and the declaration under Section 6 cannot be said to be beyond the time prescribed for that purpose. Thereafter, on account of delayed publication 2 of the proceedings cannot lapse. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case the lapse in mode of publication of Notification under Section 4 and declaration u/s. 6 remains mere irregularity, not affecting the validity of entire proceedings. It was urged that publication of declaration under Section 6 in the last mode, can yet be made. However, he admits that 3 defect in publication of notification under section 4 of the Act cannot now be cured, if held to be mandatory without quashing proceedings under section 6 of the Act. 10. Lastly it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire acquisition proceedings have been conducted by the 3 Asstt. Town Planner, U.I.T., who was never appointed as a Collector for the purposes of the Act of 1894 by the appropriate Government which alone was competent to confer such power on him, and therefore, the entire proceedings conducted by him is null and void and cannot result in any successful result. 4 11. Having given our careful consideration to the two contentions raised before us, we are of the opinion that without going into the merits of the other contentions the appeals and petitions must succeed on the last ground mentioned above as in our opinion the proceedings have been taken by the Asstt. Town Planner, U.I.T. who was never appointed by the appropriate 41 Government to discharge the functions of the Collector under the Act. Town Planner, U.I.T. who was never appointed by the appropriate 41 Government to discharge the functions of the Collector under the Act. In this regard Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 invites our attention, which reads as under : "The expression "Collector" means the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially are appointed by the (appropriate Government) to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act". 12. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the Collector for the purposes of the Act ought to be either the Collector of the District, which expression includes a Dy. Commissioner of the distinct, or he may be any other officer who is specially appointed by the Appropriate Government to perform the function as a Collector under Act. The key to the aforesaid provision is that the person, who is Collector of a district and includes a Dy. Commissioner, who alone by his office is envisaged to perform the function of Collector. In addition thereto any other officer can discharge functions which are required to be performed by Collector under the Act only if he is specially appointed by the appropriate Government viz. the Government which has issued the declaration under section 4 of the Act. 13. The Authority to appoint any office other than the Collector of the District or Dy. Commissioner of the District vest with Appropriate Government (in the present case Government of Rajasthan) only and in none else. No other authority can confer on any office the jurisdiction to perform the functions of Collector under the Act. It may be noticed in this connection that under the scheme of the Act, the very initiation of the land acquisition proceedings is with the publication of notification under Section 4 notifying to the people that it appears to the appropriate Government that the land in any locality is likely to be needed for a public purpose. One of the very essential requirements of publication is investigation to be carried out by the Collector. He is also required to cause notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality in which the land sought to be acquired is situated. One of the very essential requirements of publication is investigation to be carried out by the Collector. He is also required to cause notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality in which the land sought to be acquired is situated. The purpose of such Notification is two fold, firstly by the said provision a notice is required to be given to a:I persons interested in such land about the proposed mandatory acquisition in order to give all persons interested an opportunity to raise objections to such proceedings and secondly to hold a preliminary enquiry into the suitability and identity of land sought to be acquired. Both these functions viz. holding of preliminary enquiry and receiving objection filed in pursuance of Notification for the purpose of making report to the appropriate Government about such objections after holding enquiry completed, under Section 5A are to be discharged by the Collector. The publication of Notification by causing it to be published as a convenient place in the locality of land is also to be carried out by the Collector. It is for this reason Section 4 envisages authorising any person for holding a preliminary investigation and holding enquiry for submitting his reports before the final decision about the requirement of land under Notification for any public purpose is taken by the appropriate Government before issuing declaration under Section 6 is taken by making a declaration under Section 6. 14. It is pertinent to notice that under sub-section 2 of Section 4, it is only for any officer lawfully appointed by the appropriate Govt. acquires the jurisdiction to enter upon the land and for the survey and any purpose of carrying out investigation under Section 4. So also entertaining the claims and making award of compensation in respect of land to be acquired and taking possession by due process are the functions to be discharged by the Collector under the Act. All such function can be discharged by only such person who satisfies the test of being Collector under Section 3(e) of the Act. Any proceedings taken by any officer, who is not appointed specially by the appropriate Government in the manner required under the Act, can not discharge the functions of the Collector under the Act. All such function can be discharged by only such person who satisfies the test of being Collector under Section 3(e) of the Act. Any proceedings taken by any officer, who is not appointed specially by the appropriate Government in the manner required under the Act, can not discharge the functions of the Collector under the Act. Holding of preliminary enquiry and consideration of report by the Collector after holding enquiry by affording on being to objectors, if any, is a sine quo non for declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 15. This ground was specifically stated in amended writ petition. In reply thereto a vague answer was given. However, during the course of hearing, we have been informed by Shri B.S. Bhati, Addl. Advocate who placed on record the letter dated 16.1.2002 by the S.D.O. and Land Development Officer, which convey clearly that the Government has not appointed any person to discharge the functions of Collector/Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquisition proceedings in question. It was the decision of the Secretary of the U.I.T. for expeditiously proceeding in the matter to appoint his subordinate officer viz. Asstt. Town Planner, U.I.T. to discharge the function of the land acquisition officer for the acquisition proceedings in question. There is no dispute before us now that the entire proceedings from the beginning viz. from the preliminary enquiry under section 4 to the holding of enquiry and submission of report under Section 5A have been conducted by Asstt. Town Planner, an officer of U.I.T. appointed to perform the functions of the Collector by the Secretary, U.I.T. He was not at all appointed by the Government of Rajasthan to discharge the functions of the Collector under the Act. Therefore, entire proceedings conducted by the Asstt. Town Planner, Sriganganagar cannot be said to be proceeding conducted by any Competent Officer having any authority to conduct such proceedings. Such proceedings cannot acquire any sanctity and be clothed with validity so as to result in any valid consequences on that basis. 16. This alone, in our opinion, is sufficient for success of the petitions and appeals. We are fortified in above conclusion by a recent Bench Judgment of this Court in Lalita Ben v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 442/1999 decided on 7.5.2001) . The similar question was considered by the bench. 16. This alone, in our opinion, is sufficient for success of the petitions and appeals. We are fortified in above conclusion by a recent Bench Judgment of this Court in Lalita Ben v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 442/1999 decided on 7.5.2001) . The similar question was considered by the bench. The contention raised before the Bench was that the award under challenge was without jurisdiction because under Section 3(c) of the Act the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu who had made the award was not conferred with the authority to discharge the functions of Collector, when he passed the award. S.D.O., Abu was initially authorised to discharge the functions of the collector under the Act. However, he was replaced as Collector/Land Acquisition Officer by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi vide Notification dated 28.5.1979 which was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 7.6.1979. After 7.6.1979, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu had no jurisdiction to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings at all. Therefore, after the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi was appointed as Collector to discharge the functions for the locality in question under the Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Abu ceased to be Collector for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, proceedings taken by him after the aforesaid Notification were void. The court said after referring to the provisions of the Act : "Action by an officer who is duly constituted Collector within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act in a sine-qua-non for valid proceedings. An officer who is not specially appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act, lacks inherent jurisdiction and proceedings taken by him stand vitiated for want of jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed as even the consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction. Further when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. it has been hither to uncontroverted legal position that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden." 17. The consequences were also noticed by the Court. The award was quashed. There was no award within two years of the declaration under Section 6. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden." 17. The consequences were also noticed by the Court. The award was quashed. There was no award within two years of the declaration under Section 6. Hence, the entire land acquisition proceedings were held to have been lapsed. With these findings appeal was allowed and land acquisition proceedings were quashed.We are in respectful agreement. 18. As we have reached the conclusion that no proceedings which were required to be taken by the Collector under the Act, have been taken by any authority who has been vested with the power to discharge functions of the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the appropriate Government i.e. Government of Rajasthan and all actions have been proceeded by a person who lacked inherent jurisdiction under the Act. That being the position, the resultant consequence emerge that after the notification under Section 4 was published, neither any enquiry envisage under Section 5A can be said to have been conducted which could provide foundation for a valid declaration under Section 6, nor the declaration under Section 6 can be held to be validity made within the time permitted under section 6 from the date of publication of Section 4. 19. Therefore without going to other issues it can safely be held that no functions having been performed by an officer having vested with authority to act as Collector, the proceedings which were initiated by the Notification under Section 4 lapsed. 20. As a result, these appeals are allowed, the judgment and order under appeals in each case is set-aside and writ petitions are allowed. The impugned acquisition proceedings are quashed.There shall be no orders as to costs.Appeals allowed - Judgement appealed against set aside - Writ petitions allowed. *******