Judgment K.S. Radhakrishnan, CJ.—Petitioners have approached this Court with these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming compensation on the ground that their lands are being leased out by the Government to Tata Motors Limited for setting up Nano Car Project, without following the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Government vide Resolution dated 21.10.2008 allotted about 1100 acres (Hector 445-17-00 = 44,51,700 sq. mtrs.) of land situated at village Northcote-Pura in Sanand Taluka of Ahmedabad Distt. in favour of Tata Motors Limited, at the rate of Rs. 900/- per square meter, after getting the land value determined by the State level Price Committee in consultation with the Chief Town Planner. 3. Petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 14639 of 2008 claims that 810 acres and 36 gunthas of land in old survey No. 33 in Bol Taluka, forming part of the above mentioned property, was their ancestral property which was earlier leased out in favour of one Panachand Ranchhodbhai, a resident of Khadia, Ahmedabad on 16.5.1893 for a period of 17 years, Panachand Ranchhodbhai in turn had leased out part of subject land covered by old survey No. 33 and other lands to Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association, somewhere in April, 1903. Lease granted by petitioners’ ancestors in favour of Panachand Ranchhodbhai was later cancelled by a registered document on 3.12.1912. Consequently, all the rights of Panachand Ranchhodbhai and that of Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association stood extinguished. Petitioners further state that after the year 1912, possession of the lands in question stood remained with ancestors of the petitioners and now with the petitioners by inheritance. Petitioners’ names were however not shown in the revenue records, hence they submitted an application on 8.6.2000 to the Collector for mutation of their names in the revenue records which was however, rejected in the absence of supporting evidence. Later, an application dated 13.1.2007 was preferred by one of the relatives of the petitioners to District Inspector of Land Records, seeking details of the lands in question for which a reply was received on 31.1.2007, informing its non-availability. Later, an application dated 13.1.2007 was preferred by one of the relatives of the petitioners to District Inspector of Land Records, seeking details of the lands in question for which a reply was received on 31.1.2007, informing its non-availability. Petitioners later learnt about a Government Resolution dated 18.4.2006 deciding to allot 2090 acres of land to Anand Agricultural University and 251 acres and 27 gunthas of land to the Gujarat Live Stock Development Board and the Director of Animal Husbandry, and posting of revenue entry on 6.5,2006 in village form No.6 with regard to lands of Northcote-pura. Petitioners then filed an application under Right to Information Act for obtaining copy of Resolution dated 18.4.2006, Yet, another application was also preferred for getting copies of the four documents referred to in the Government Resolution dated 18.4.2006. On perusing those documents, petitioners came to know that land of North Cot Breeding Farm was acquired by Assistant Collector of Sanand Taluka on 22.8.1911 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Further, it was also noticed that the entire parcel of land covered by North Cot Pura admeasuring 2251 acres and 37 gunthas was never entered in the name of Gujarat Agricultural University in the revenue records though lands were alleged to have been acquired for its purpose. Further, it was also noticed that name of Institute of Agriculture, Anand was also not entered in the revenue records. Petitioners also came to know that out of the above mentioned property, Government had given 200 acres of land to Animal Husbandry Department. Perusing all those documents, petitioners came to know that Government had not followed relevant provisions under the Land Acquisition Act before acquiring the properties of the petitioners ancestors. Reference was also made to letter dated 26/27.09.2007 in which Anand Agricultural University has stated that they have nothing to do with the parcel of lands bearing survey Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 21, 29, 31, 32, 33,34 and 35 of village Bol, Tal. Sanand. Petitioners also submit that the letter dated 23.2.2006 of the Vice Chancellor of Anand Agricultural University also confirms the above fact. Petitioners at this juncture came to know that a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between Government and Tata Motors Limited on 7.10.2008 for allotment of the petitioners’ land on lease. Sanand. Petitioners also submit that the letter dated 23.2.2006 of the Vice Chancellor of Anand Agricultural University also confirms the above fact. Petitioners at this juncture came to know that a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between Government and Tata Motors Limited on 7.10.2008 for allotment of the petitioners’ land on lease. Under these circumstances, they have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the action of the Government in allotting the lands as stated above is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and in the alternative, petitioners have also sought a direction to the authorities to pay adequate compensation to them at the current market price, and also for the consequential reliefs. 4. Petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 14257 of 2008 have also approached this Court challenging action of the State Government in allotting land admeasuring 865 acres 27 gunthas, situated at Khoda Taluka, Sanand District to Tata Motors Limited, without following the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and without paying adequate compensation to the claimants. Contention of the petitioners is that above mentioned lands were originally owned by their ancestors and that in the year 1900 because of drought and non-availability of water in the region, people found it difficult to save sacred Kankrej cows and to overcome such a situation, Northcote Cattle Breeding Farm at Chharodi was established in the year 1899-1900. Petitioners submit that land in question was given to the cattle breeding farm by the petitioners’ ancestors on execution of lease deed, bearing document No. 282 dated 7.10.1902. Petitioners had made an application to Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad for a copy of the lease deed and the same was replied by Sub-Registrar’s office stating that the said document was not available. Petitioner has also submitted that repeated requests were made to the Government to hand over the subject piece of land to the petitioners. Later, officials of Anand Agricultural University orally informed petitioners that land in question was acquired by the State Government in the year 1911 and that from the communication of Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 17.7.2006, petitioners came to know that lands in question were acquired by the Government and an award dated 22.8.1911 was passed. Petitioners submit that they have never supplied with copy of Section 4(1) Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, or copy of the award dated 22.8.1911. Petitioners submit that they have never supplied with copy of Section 4(1) Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, or copy of the award dated 22.8.1911. Under these circumstances, petitioners have approached this Court seeking a declaration that action of the Government in allotting lands in survey Nos. 13 to 22 and survey No.30 admeasuring 865 acres 12 gunthas situated at village Khoda, Taluka Sanand, Distt. Ahmedabad in favour of Tata Motors Limited, without following mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Alternatively, petitioners have also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay them adequate compensation at the current market value of the land, and also for consequential reliefs. 5. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed in both these cases by the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, traversing all the contentions raised in the writ petitions. Respondent State has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions and the locus-standi of the petitioners to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is hit by delay and latches. Further, it has also been stated in the counter affidavit that petitioners have not brought out any materials or evidence to show that they are the real descedants of the original land-owners, whose lands were acquired by the State Government in the year 1911. In the affidavit filed in Special Civil Application No. 14639 of 2008, it has been pointed out that though petitioners claim collective ownership of lands admeasuring 926 acres 25 gunthas of village Bol, bearing old survey Nos. 33, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, they have not produced any independent and corroborative evidence showing their ownership or possession. In the counter affidavit filed in Special Civil Application No. 14257 of 2008, it has been pointed out that though petitioners claim ownership of lands admeasuring 865 acres 12 gunthas of village Khoda, bearing old survey Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 30, no independent corroborative evidence has been produced to show that they are real descedants of the original land-owners. 6. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 30, no independent corroborative evidence has been produced to show that they are real descedants of the original land-owners. 6. The stand of the State Government is that lands in question were acquired way back in the year 1911 and the State Government took lot of efforts to procure the century old documents from various offices in the State of Gujarat as well as from the State of Maharashtra since all relevant documents and records pertained to erstwhile Bombay Province of the British regime. Affidavit has been prepared based on the available records procured from the Department of Archives situated in the present State of Maharashtra. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that at the end of 1900, because of severe and disastrous famine occurred through out greater portion of the then Bombay Province, there was complete failure of crops and scarcity of drinking water, inflicting severe hardships on cultivators and their livestock. Thus, at the initiative of His Excellency Lord Northcots, the then Governor of Bombay, lands of village Bol along with some of the lands of other villages called Khoda and Kalana were utilised for preserving and maintaining a nucleus of cattle for future development of the breed by collecting cattle from all over the province and maintaining the same at the aforesaid place. On 30.9.1902, a lease deed came to be executed by land-owners/Talukdars of the land admeasuring 865 acres 12 gunthas of village Knoda in favour of Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association Ltd for a period of 15 years starting from 1.11.1900 to 31.10.1915 on certain terms and conditions. Therefore, on the basis of above lease deed, aforesaid lands were leased out in favour of Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association Limited. On 4.3.1903, another lease deed came to be executed by Shri Maharana Ranmalsingji Bhagvatsingji for lands admeasuring 585 acres 34 gunthas of village Bol and 476 acres 26 gunthas of village Kalana in favour of Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association for the same period of 15 years, on certain terms and conditions. It is stated that on 9.7.1906, pursuant to the winding up proceedings against Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association Limited, farm along with its live-stock was resolved to be transferred to the management of Government on certain terms and conditions. It is stated that on 9.7.1906, pursuant to the winding up proceedings against Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association Limited, farm along with its live-stock was resolved to be transferred to the management of Government on certain terms and conditions. Liquidators submitted a report dated 13.8.1906 to the President, Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association Ltd. observing inter-alia that the Liquidators have taken over charge of the assets and property of the Association and management came to be transferred in favour of the Government. 7. The Revenue Department of the then State Government issued a Resolution on 7.10.1907, stating that Government had agreed to take over above referred lands along with other lands of the above mentioned three villages, popularly known as “Chharodi Cattle Farm” on the Liquidators executing duly stamped and registered assignment of leases to Government, and that question as to renewal of leases or acquisition of the land would be considered in 1913, two years before expiry of existing leases. Director of Agriculture was requested to arrange for transfer in consultation with the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs. During the period from 15.10.1908 to 3.11.1908, Director of Agriculture mooted a proposal for acquiring lands of Chharodi Cattle Farm and certain communications were exchanged between said authority and the Government for compulsorily acquiring the lands in question. Since land owners refused to give their consent for the transfer of the lands of Chharodi Cattle Farm in favour of Government as well as renewal of the lease, decision for compulsory acquisition of said lands was taken. Hon’ble the Governor in Council in the Revenue Department issued a notification on 24.2.1909 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, expressing intention to acquire lands of villages Khoda, Kalana and Bol of Sanand Taluka, which included Chharodi Cattle Farm, as specified in the Notification, for public purpose. Lands in respect of which petitioners have raised their claim were also specifically included in the Notification dated 24.2.1909 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since lands of the aforesaid villages were required urgently, the Governor in Council passed a Resolution dated 11.10.1909 invoking urgency clause under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. During the acquisition proceedings, budgetary provision was made for the purpose of compensation to be paid to the land-owners. Since lands of the aforesaid villages were required urgently, the Governor in Council passed a Resolution dated 11.10.1909 invoking urgency clause under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. During the acquisition proceedings, budgetary provision was made for the purpose of compensation to be paid to the land-owners. Pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings, an award dated 22.8.1911 came to be passed by the Assistant Collector in-charge Sanand Taluka, acquiring lands of aforesaid three villages including lands admeasuring 926 acres 25 gunthas, for a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,99,270,50 and it was proportionately paid to the then land owners. Thus, after 22.8.1911, lands referred to in the said Notification including lands referred to by the petitioners came to be vested in the State Government 8. Governor-in-Council, later in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, directed amalgamation of three villages, viz. Bol, Kalana and Khoda in Sanand Taluka of Ahmedabad Dist. and formed a new village under the name of Northcote-pura, with effect from 1.8.1912. A declaration to that effect was published in the Bombay Government Gazette dated 16.5.1912, which shows formation of “Northcote-Pura”. As a result of revision survey settlement of 47 Government villages carried out in the year 1927, land of aforesaid village Northcote-Pura, admeasuring about 2278 acres 31 gunthas came to be shown as Government Land belonging to the State Government. Consequently, village Form No. I (Kayam Khardo) for that village came into existence. Later, by virtue of Memorandum dated 27.1.1939, Government of Bombay, Revenue Department, transferred management of Chharodi Cattle Farm at Chharodi to Agricultural Institute, Anand. Later, vide Government Resolution dated 31.7.1972, declared that Governing Body of the Institute of Agriculture, Anand had, vide its Resolution No. 11 dated 19.5.1972, resolved that the Institute be handed over to the State Government, so that it may form a part of Gujarat Agricultural University and that in view thereof, Governing Body stood dissolved with effect from 1.6.1972. Later on 18.4.2006 the Agriculture and Co-operation Department of the State Government took a decision to allot land admeasuring 2000 Acres to Anand Agricultural University and 251 Acres 37 Gunthas to Gujarat Livestock Development Board. Later on 18.4.2006 the Agriculture and Co-operation Department of the State Government took a decision to allot land admeasuring 2000 Acres to Anand Agricultural University and 251 Acres 37 Gunthas to Gujarat Livestock Development Board. On 21.10.2008, State Government passed a Resolution allotting about 1100 acres of Government land of village Northcote-Pura in Sanand Taluka in favour of Tata Motors Limited to set-up their project for manufacture of Nano car, for a consideration at the rate of Rs. 900 per square meter. In the above facts and situation, it is stated in the counter affidavit that writ petitions lacks bona fide, ill-advised and also suffers from delay and latches. 9. We heard Senior Counsel Shri P.M. Thakkar and Shri Yatin Oza. Learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that properties in question were originally belonged to their fore-fathers and that the petitioners are their legal heirs and representatives by way of inheritance and therefore, they have a right to get adequate compensation since properties are being parted with by the State Government in favour of Tata Motors Limited unauthorizedly, without following provisions of the Land Acquisition Act Senior Counsels refuted the contention of the State that they had followed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for taking away the properties legitimately belonging to them. Further it was also submitted that State had only issued Section 6 Notification and no declaration as provided under Sections 4, 7, 9 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has been ever made. Further, submission was made that there is no reason to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the and in any case it was not preceded by Section 9 Notice. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Thakkar submitted that failure to follow procedure prescribed under Sections 4, 7 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in R.L Jain (D) By LRs. vs. DDA and Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 79 , Mohansing and Ors. vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1997) 9 SCC 132 , Narindrajit Singh and Ranjit Singh vs. State of UP and Ors., (1973) 1 SCC 157 and Khubchand and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1074 . vs. DDA and Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 79 , Mohansing and Ors. vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1997) 9 SCC 132 , Narindrajit Singh and Ranjit Singh vs. State of UP and Ors., (1973) 1 SCC 157 and Khubchand and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1074 . Further learned Counsel submitted that the State Government has not produced any documents to show that adequate compensation was paid to real owners of the property in question. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to Resolution under Section 17 dated 11.10.1909 and stated that there were 36 interested persons, whereas State has produced an extract from Register maintained at the Farm to show payments made to only one Thakor Saheb. Learned Counsel therefore, submitted that the failure to follow the mandatory provision of the land acquisition proceedings, and of not giving adequate compensation to the claimants have vitiated the entire proceedings. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in Dhirendra Nath Gorai, Subal Chandra Nath Saha & Ors. vs. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1300 , Jaswantstngh Mathura Singh & Anr. vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (1991) 2 GLH 309 and A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Government of A.P & Ors., (2007) 4 SCC 221 . Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that there has not been any delay or latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court, since the Government is parting with the properties to Tata Motors Limited only now under the guise of land acquisition proceedings initiated before 1911. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in The Moon Mills Ltd. vs. M.R. Meher, President Industrial Court, AIR 1967 SC 1450 . 10. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza submitted that in the absence of Section 4 Notification, the entire land acquisition proceedings lapses, since issuance of Section 4 Notification is a sine-qua-non for any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. vs. DDA and Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79 . Learned Counsel also submitted that even while invoking urgency provisions contained in Section 17(1) of the Act, mandatory requirement of publication of Notification under Sections 4 and 6 cannot be dispensed with. vs. DDA and Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79 . Learned Counsel also submitted that even while invoking urgency provisions contained in Section 17(1) of the Act, mandatory requirement of publication of Notification under Sections 4 and 6 cannot be dispensed with. Reference was also made to the decision in Union of India vs. Budh Singh and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 233 . Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd. Shafi and Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 168 . Learned Counsel also submitted that Land Acquisition Act prescribes a procedure and the same has to be strictly followed, and State Government cannot be allowed to circumvent those provisions and indirectly take possession of the land, which cannot be done directly. In support, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 . 11. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners in both these cases submitted that they are more concerned with the compensation amount and they have no objection in parting with the properties, if adequate compensation is paid to them. Learned Counsels also stated that petitioners are poor illiterate farmers unaware of the provisions of the Land Acquisition proceedings and even if there is some delay in challenging the land acquisition proceedings, on that ground compensation should not be denied to them since the entire land acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory requirements. 12. Learned Advocate General Shri Kamal Trivedi on the other hand contended that writ petitions are frivolous and it is nothing but an abuse of the process of this Court. Learned Advocate General submitted that petitioners have not produced any documents worth considering to show that they are or were the real owners of the properties. Learned Advocate General also submitted that acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1909 and almost 100 years have been passed, and it was with much difficulty certain documents could be traced out and produced before the Court. Learned Advocate General submitted that burden is entirely on the petitioners to establish that they or their predecessors were the owners of the property in question. No documents have been produced to show their right, title or interest in the properties acquired by the State. Learned Advocate General submitted that burden is entirely on the petitioners to establish that they or their predecessors were the owners of the property in question. No documents have been produced to show their right, title or interest in the properties acquired by the State. Properties were acquired by the State and award was passed as early as 22.8.1911 and compensation amount of Rs. 74,193.60 was paid to Talukdar of Khoda village for the lands in question i.e. 865 acres 12 gunthas and similarly, compensation amounts to the tune of Rs. 1,00,203.30 was paid with reference to lands of village Kalana, which included lands admeasuring 926 acres 25 gunthas of village Likewise, compensation amount of Rs. 24,873.12 was paid to the mortgators of Bol Wanta for 323 acres 35 gunthas. No complaint was ever received from the so-called ancestors of the petitioners at any point of time with regard to the land acquisition award or the quantum of compensation. Following the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code, acquired lands in three villages were amalgamated and new village by name Northcote Pura was formed, On 23.5.1927, the then Government had passed ‘’necessary orders as per the aforesaid provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code, wherein the aforesaid land of village North cote-pura came to be shown as Government land. Learned Advocate General referred in detail to the facts stated in the counter affidavit and submitted that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Learned Advocate General also submitted that a Civil Suit No. 130 of 2006 has also been preferred by some of the residents of village Bol before the Court of learned Principal Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad against Northcote-Pura Chharodi Cattle Farm (Anand Agricultural University) seeking declaration that land bearing survey Nos. 21, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35 and survey Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9 are in their ownership and possession. Petitioners herein are claiming to be collective owners in respect of lands covered by the above mentioned survey numbers. Further, it was also pointed out that in Paragraph 5 of the plaint of Civil Suit, it has been stated that the lands in question were acquired in the year 1909, but owing to an inter-se dispute between the owners, they had not accepted the compensation. 13. Further, it was also pointed out that in Paragraph 5 of the plaint of Civil Suit, it has been stated that the lands in question were acquired in the year 1909, but owing to an inter-se dispute between the owners, they had not accepted the compensation. 13. Petitioners have approached this Court at a time when State Government took a decision to allot lands in question on lease in favour of Tata Motors Limited for setting up their Nano Car Project, on the ground that their fore-fathers were owners of the property in question and that they were not adequately compensated. Further, they say that in the absence of Section 4(1) Notification, the entire land acquisition proceedings lapses and consequently, unless the lands are legally acquired, State Government has no legal right to part with the properties owned or possessed by the petitioners. Petitioners have not produced any documents to show their ownership over the properties in question. No documents have been produced before us to show that they are in possession of the properties either. In other words, to show their right, title and interest in the properly, no materials are forthcoming. Petitioners are attempting to establish their case placing the entire burden on the State Government. State Government has stated that the then Governor-in-Council had acquired the properties in question by virtue of an award dated 22.8.1911. Petitioners have taken up contention that State Government had not produced cogent evidence and material before this Court to show that the then Government had meticulously followed all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act before passing of the award dated 22.8.1911. Petitioners main thrust of the argument is that in absence of Section 4(1) Notification as well as in absence of non-production of Sections 6 and 9 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, the entire steps taken by the State Government in passing award dated 22.8.1911 is vitiated and it has lost its legal sanctity and consequently, properties would still remain in the ownership of the petitioners, being legal heirs of original owners. 14. We are called upon to examine whether the then Government (Governor-in-Council) had followed all mandatory procedures under Land Acquisition Act, 1897, before passing of the award dated 22.8.1911. 14. We are called upon to examine whether the then Government (Governor-in-Council) had followed all mandatory procedures under Land Acquisition Act, 1897, before passing of the award dated 22.8.1911. The fact that such an award was passed on 22.8.1911 is not disputed and the fact that lands in question were the subject matter of that award is also undisputed. Complaint is with regard to the failure of the then Government to follow the mandatory provisions under the Land Acquisition Act before passing award on 22.8.1911, Petitioners have asserted that even after passing of the award dated 22.8.1911, their ancestors and later the petitioners have not parted with possession, but the contention is not supported by material evidence. Petitioners have admitted that their names have not been mutated in the revenue records all these years, Petitioners or their ancestors have all these years never challenged the validity of the award or sought any reference to the Court claiming enhancement of compensation. Petitioners have also attempted to show that Anand Agricultural University and Gujarat Livestock Development Board who are instrumentalities of the State have never been put in possession and their names have never been entered in the revenue records. Further it has been clearly stated in the counter affidavit that whatever documents produced by State Government have been procured from the Department of Archives situated in the present State of Maharashtra. Perusal of documents produced would indicate execution of lease deeds dated 13.9.1902 and 4.3.1903 in favour of Gujarat Cattle Preservation Association Limited. Document dated 15.2.1906 would indicate how Chharodi Cattle Farm was put in possession. Few of the other documents produced would indicate why the then Governor-in-Council had decided to acquire lands in question. Document of the Revenue Department, bearing No. 9823 dated 7th October, 1907 would indicate about the move of the then Government to acquire land. Notification bearing No. 1955 dated 24.2.1909 refers to publication of Section 6 declaration as per Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, which describes the land in question. Notification bearing No. 9834 dated 11th October, 1909 would indicate invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1874, with reference to the lands in question and that Notification specifically refers to notice given under Section 9, Sub-section (l) of the Act. Following the above procedure, an award was passed on 22.8.1911. 15. Notification bearing No. 9834 dated 11th October, 1909 would indicate invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1874, with reference to the lands in question and that Notification specifically refers to notice given under Section 9, Sub-section (l) of the Act. Following the above procedure, an award was passed on 22.8.1911. 15. Land Acquisition Act 9 of 1870 had advocated, the right of the State to re-assert its right of eminent domain over a portion of the soil of the State on account of public exigency and for public good and the inherent power of the State Government to take privately owned property and convert it for public use on payment of reasonable compensation. Later Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 was enacted, which amended the law for acquisition of land for public purpose and for companies but the Act did not contain any provision for consutting the wishes of the people whose lands were compulsorily acquired. Emphasis was much on Section 6, rather than on Section 4, Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 was aimed at promoting public interest and private interest was subordinated. Act authorised the Local Government to make compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes and for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition. In making the acquisition the wishes of the owners were originally wholly irrelevant but made relevant by Act XXXVIII of 1923. Though it did not originally contain any provision for any objection on the part of the owners to the acquisition itself the defect has been remedied by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act XXXVIII of 1923. Prior to that objections were limited to the amount of compensation and matters connected therewith. 16. Section 4(1) of the Act, as it stood prior to Act XXXVIII of 1923 read as follows:— “Section 4 (1)—Whenever it appears to the Local Government that land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality.” 17. The purpose of issuing such a notice was that under Sub-section (2) of the Act, it would be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by the Government in that behalf, and for his servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey and take levels of the land and any land in such locality. 18. Sub-section (i) of Section 6 as it stood prior to Act XXXVIII of 1923 read as follows:— “Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, whenever it appears to the Local Government that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government, or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders,” 19. Later, some amendment was brought into Act XXXVIII of 1923, and after amendment, Section 4(1) read as follows:— “Whenever it appears to the Local Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient place in the said locality.” 20. Section 5-A, which was added to Act XXXVIII of 1923 read as follows:— “Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, Sub-section (l), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.” 21. Part VII, Land Acquisition Act deals with the acquisition of land for companies, Section 40 as it originally stood constituted the Government as the custodian of public interests, the sole judge to find out whether the land is required for the construction of some work, or whether the work is likely to prove useful to the public and the wishes of the owners of the land were wholly irrelevant. Section 40(1) was also amended by Act XXXVIII of 1923. The words “either on the report of the Collector under Section 5A, Sub-section (a) or” after the word “satisfied” was inserted. Section 40(1) was also amended by Act XXXVIII of 1923. The words “either on the report of the Collector under Section 5A, Sub-section (a) or” after the word “satisfied” was inserted. The effect of the amendment is that any person interested in any land which has been notified under Sub-section (l) of Section 4 may, within 30 days after the issue of Notification, object to the acquisition of the land, followed by an application of being heard. 22. Above facts would clearly indicate that prior to Amendment Act XXXVIII of 1923, requirement to follow procedure under Section 4(1) was not mandatory and failure to follow that procedure would not have rendered land acquisition proceedings a nullity. It is relevant to note that expression used in the old provision of Section 4(1) was “likely to be needed” and in Section 6, the expression used was “needed”. After coming into force Act XXXVIII of 1923, expression used in Section 4(1) was “is needed”. Under the unamended Act, in making the acquisition wishes of the owners were wholly irrelevant but had been made relevant only by Act XXXVIII of 1923. Therefore, publication of Section 4(1) Notification was not a sine-qua-non for initiating proceedings under the unamended Land Acquisition Act. After amendment of Land Acquisition Act, by Act of XXXVIII of 1923, requirement of publication of Notification under Section 4(1) was made mandatory and was made sine-qua-non. Above legal position has been dealt with by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Nur Mahomed Husen vs. The Secretary of State for India, AIR 1926 Bombay 369. The Bench has observed that there was no obligation on the part of the Government, when it considered that land was needed for a public purpose, to issue a notice under Section 4, but it could proceed at once to issue a declaration under Section 6. It was held in Ezra vs. Secretary of State (30 Cal 36) that in making an acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, unamended the wishes of the owners of the lands were wholly irrelevant and it did not contain any provision for any objection on the part of the owner to the acquisition itself. All his objections were limited to the amount of compensation. All his objections were limited to the amount of compensation. The Court also held that a declaration under Section 6 prior to 1923, with a view of acquiring land for a company was not to be considered void, merely because inquiry was conducted under Section 40 without notice to the owners. The statement and object of Bill No. 29 of 1923 would also re-emphasise that fact which reads as follows: — “The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not provide the persons having an interest in land which it is proposed to acquire, shall have the right of objecting to such acquisition, nor is the Government bound to enquire into and consider any objections that may reach them. The object of this Bill is to provide that a local Government shall not declare under Section 6 of the Act, that any land is needed for a public purpose unless time has been allowed after the notification under Section 4 for persons interested in the land to put objection and for such objections to be considered by the local Government” 23. Section 4(1) was accordingly amended and Section 5A was added vide Amendment Act XXXVIII of 1923 as a result of which the wishes of the owners was made no longer irrelevant 24. We have stated that so far as the present case is concerned, acquisition proceedings were initiated prior to Amendment Act XXXVIII of 1923. Consequently, requirement to follow procedure under Section 4(1) of the Act was not sine-qua-non and hence, assuming that no notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, proceedings initiated would not have lapsed. Further, we are not prepared to say that non-production of such declaration or the notifications under Sections 7, 9 and 11 would in any way affect the validity of the award which was passed on 22.8.1911, and attained finality even before Amendment Act XXXVIII of 1923 came into existence, and at this distance of time, petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the then State Government had not followed relevant procedure before passing award on 22.8.1911. Facts would clearly indicate that lands in question were included in the award dated 22.8.1911, the validity of which or the inadequacy of the compensation was never questioned by the petitioners or their ancestors all these years. Facts would clearly indicate that lands in question were included in the award dated 22.8.1911, the validity of which or the inadequacy of the compensation was never questioned by the petitioners or their ancestors all these years. Further there is nothing to show that any reference has been sought for under Section 18 of the Act for higher compensation. 25. Petitioners claiming to be legal heirs of original claimants cannot, after a period of nearly 100 years contend that their forefathers were not paid adequate compensation and hence they be compensated. Petitioners’ ancestors had never questioned the validity of the award or the quantum of compensation. Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Digamper (1995) 4 SCC 683 , declined to examine, the adequacy or inadequacy of compensation due to the delay of 20 years in invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and here, the delay is about hundred years. Petitioners have not produced any documents to show their ownership, possession, title or interest over the properties in question, Further we are also informed that few of the parties who alleged to have some interest in the lands in question have approached the Civil Court. Above being the factual and legal situation, we are of the view that these writ petitions are frivolous, speculative and vexatious and nothing but an abuse of the process of this Court and hence, we impose costs of Rs, 10,000/- on each of these writ petitions, to be paid to the Gujarat High Court Mediation Centre within one month from today. Special Civil Applications stand dismissed.