JUDGMENT 1. - The common question of law and facts relating to the acquisition of the land are involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, they are being clubbed together and further are being decided by this common order. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the land situated in Mohalla Dhobhi Ghata, North East Block, Scheme No.10 in various Khasra numbers, as referred in the writ petition. 3. For the purpose of decision of this writ petitions, the leading facts of the case of Ram Lal are being referred. 4. The notification under Section 52 (1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (here-in-after to be referred as the Act of 1959) was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 04.03.1982, which includes the names of the petitioners. But no individual notice under Section 52 (2) of the Act of 1959 was served. It is also stated in the writ petition that the respondents have also failed to determine the compensation as per Section 52 (7) of the Act of 1959 as existed at the time of acquisition, which was completed before amendment made in Section 52 (7) of the Act of 1959 in the year 1987. In reply to the writ petition, it has been stated that the fact of issuance of the notice under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 has been individual admitted in Para 5 of the writ petition. It is further stated that the general notice issued under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 dated 04.03.1983 was published in the Official gazette on 07.03.1983 and on account of the issuance of the said notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 the land absolutely vest in the State Government without any encumbrance, as per provisions of Section 52 (4) of the Act of 1959. The determination of compensation was not made clear in reply to the writ petition by the respondents, therefore, this Court passed an order dated 26.08.2008, in compliance to which an additional affidavit was filed to place on record the award/determination order and in compliance to which the order dated 20.01.2003 was placed, according to which the compensation of the irrigated land was to be paid Rs.30,000/- per bigha, non-irrigated land Rs.25,000/- per bigha, compensation of Well Rs.15,000/- and the further compensation for trees and constructions as per rates of the Department. The respondents have further stated that as per the calculation based on the said determination order the amount has been deposited before the Collector/Civil Judge (S.D.), Alwar, where the reference proceedings are pending. The possession of the property in dispute was taken in the year 1985, but no development was taken place on account of the interim order passed in civil suit filed in the year 1987 and subsequently in these writ petitions. 5. The main challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner is that no individual notice was served upon the petitioners and further there was no order of award/determination of compensation was passed and on account of the said non-service of the individual notice under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 and non determination/ passing of the award/non-determination of compensation the acquisition proceedings are violative of mandatory provisions under Section 52 (1) and 52 (7) of the Act of 1959, therefore, the same are void. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Urban Improvement Trust v. Balveer Singh and Others, reported in R.L.R. 1984 Page 398. 6. It was further submitted that they have not accepted the amount awarded by the respondents and applied for reference and the reference is pending. But the fact is that no actual determination has been made. 7. The Counsel for the respondents submits that the compliance of the provisions of Section 52 of the Act of 1959 as stood prior to 1987 has been made by serving individual notice as well as determination of the compensation and the depositing the same before the Collector/Civil Judge (S.D.). Alwar, therefore, the land vests in the State and the compensation of the same has also been taken. Alwar, therefore, the land vests in the State and the compensation of the same has also been taken. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance in the case of Pratap v. State & Others, AIR 1996 S.C. 1296 . 8. I have gone through the record of the writ petitions and further considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for all the parties. 9. Section 52 (2), (3) and (7) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, read as under:- "(2) Before publishing a notice under Section (1), the State Government shall by another notice call upon the owner of the land and any other person who in the opinion of the State Government may be interested therein to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. "(3) Within the time specified in the notice, the owner of the land and any other person who in the opinion of the State Government may be interested therein. It shall also be published in the Official Gazzete at least 30 days in advance and shall be pasted on some conspicuous place in the locality, where the land to be acquired is situate. Such publication and pasting of notice shall be deemed as sufficient and proper service of notice upon the owner of the land and upon all other persons who may be interested therein. "(7) After the land has been acquired and its possession taken, the State Government shall, on payment of the amount of compensation as determined, the amount of interest thereon and of all other charges incurred by the State Government in this connection, transfer it to the Trust or to any other prescribed authority or department for the purpose for which it is acquired". 10. In Para 2 (iii) of the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that an individual notice under Section 52 of the Act of 1959 has not been served upon him, therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed being violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 52 (1) read with Section 52 (2) of the Act of 1959. 11. 11. The respondents in their reply has submitted that the notice dated 01.03.1983 under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 was served upon him and the petitioner further appeared before them and the participated in the acquisition proceedings. They have also submitted that the Civil Court, while dismissing their civil suit for injunction, has also taken a note of the said facts to the extent that the plaintiff has not denied the service of the notice. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to controvert the said fact of reply, therefore, I conclude that the individual notice under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 was served upon the petitioner, therefore, this contention of the petitioner has no force. 12. Second contention of the petitioner is that the amount has not been determined, as required under Section 52 (7) of the Act of 1959 is also contrary to the record, as the petitioner himself has appeared and given statement in compensation proceedings, which was ultimately determined by enhancing the rate of compensation of irrigated land @ Rs.30,000/- per bigha and unirregated land Rs.25,000/- per bigha, along with other matters and the compliance of which has been made by depositing the compensation before the Collector/Civil Judge (S.D.) Alwar. 13. The judgment of the Division Bench is not applicable in the present matters and the judgment cited by the respondents i.e. Pratap v. State (Supra) in this matters is applicable. 14. No other point has been pressed by the petitioner. 15. In view of above, I do not find any force in these writ petitions. However, in case there is any policy of the State Government to award the developed land in such type of cases, then it would be open for the petitioners to submit representation for award of the developed land in lieu of compensation. In case, any representation is submitted within a period of one month from today, then the State Government shall decide the same within two months. 16. The writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations.No order as to costs.Writ Petitions Dismissed *******