Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—Heard. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred as against the order dated 17.11.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 260/1995 by the Single Bench thereby allowing the writ application filed by the Municipal Board, Hindaun quashing the auction notice dated 4.9.1994 issued by the appellant Hindaun Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited. 3. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the erstwhile Urban Improvement Trust initiated proceedings for acquisition of land under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959. Requisite steps were taken under Section 52. Earlier writ petition Nos. 470/1975 and 471/1075 were filed by appellants challenging acquisition which were dismissed on 23.11.1983. The appellant Co-operative Society in 1989 again challenged the acquisition in writ petition D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1620/1986 which was decided by this Court along with other writ petitions in Bishambhar Dayal & others vs. The State of Rajasthan & others 1991(1) WLC (Raj.) 686. The writ petitions were decided on 23.1.1989 and the Division Bench of this Court held that there was vesting of land in the State Government. 4. It is also not in dispute that as against the decision rendered in Bishambhar Dayal & others vs. State of Rajasthan & others (supra) along with the matter of the appellant, SLP preferred was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5. After the UIT's were abolished and all the assets were handed over to the Municipal Board concerned. The land was put to auction by Hindaun Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti by impugned notice of auction which has been quashed by the Single Bench. 6. The stand of the Municipal Board in the writ petition filed before the Single Bench was that the land has been acquired. There is absolute vesting of the land. After it has been acquired, colony Mohan Nagar has been developed, Jain Mandir has been constructed besides road has been constructed leading to the railway station. The possession of Hindaun Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti was denied. 7. The stand of the respondent No. 2 Co-operative Society in the return was that khasra No. 1198/2 in area of 2 Bigha 1 Biswa was the property of the answering respondent. The acquisition proceedings were not completed, no award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The possession of Hindaun Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti was denied. 7. The stand of the respondent No. 2 Co-operative Society in the return was that khasra No. 1198/2 in area of 2 Bigha 1 Biswa was the property of the answering respondent. The acquisition proceedings were not completed, no award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Consequently, the land acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 11A due to non-passing of the award within a period of two years from the date amendment in the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came into force. The award could have been passed till 23.9.1986. Till then there was no stay of the Court. Thus, the proceedings stood lapsed. 8. In the decision rendered by this Court in Bishambhar Dayal & others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra), it was observed that the award is required to be passed in conformity with the Central Act. There was no absolute vesting of the property and due to the subsequent event of non-passing of the award, the proceedings stood lapsed. The land has not been handed over to the Municipal Board so far and that could have been handed over only after paying the compensation and not before that. Thus, the submission raised by the Municipal Board that the land belongs to it, is based on conjectures. The Municipal Board has no locus-standi to file the writ application to assail the auction notice issued by the Co-operative society. The development of Mohan Nagar was not started when the UIT was dissolved, as such, this scheme could not have been handed over in accordance with law to the Municipal Board, Hindaun. It is also mentioned in the special plea at para 4 that the entire land has been fully covered by the construction made by the public after obtaining approval of the Municipal Board, Hindaun and the Municipal Board, Hindaun is responsible for frustrating this scheme. It is also submitted in para 1 of the additional pleas by the respondent co-operative society that Bishambhar Dayal was the khatedar owner of the land who has not been impleaded as party. 9. The Single Bench, by the impugned order, has quashed the auction notice. Aggrieved by the decision rendered by the Single Bench, the intra-Court appeal has been preferred. 10. 9. The Single Bench, by the impugned order, has quashed the auction notice. Aggrieved by the decision rendered by the Single Bench, the intra-Court appeal has been preferred. 10. Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant co-operative society has submitted that by virtue of section 52(7) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (here-in-after referred to as, the UIT Act, 1959') there could be no handing over of the property to the Municipal Board and, thus, it was not having right to maintain the writ petition. Learned counsel has also submitted that due to subsequent event which has taken place after the decision rendered by this Court in Bishambhar Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan & others (supra), the award was required to be passed within two years and since the award was not passed within two years, the land acquisition stood lapsed with effect from 24.9.1986. The counsel has further submitted that since possession has not been taken over, no award has been passed, consequently, auction notice could not have been quashed by the Single Bench. 11. Shri S.R. Surana appearing on behalf of the Municipal Board, Hindaun-respondent No. 1 and Shri Jinesh Jain for State has submitted that there is no lapse of the acquisition proceedings by virtue of section 52(4) of the UIT Act, 1959. There is absolute vesting of the land. Apart from that, it is apparent from the averments made by the appellant-society in the return as well as from the additional affidavit which was filed on behalf of the Municipal Board that no piece of land is left now and Mohan Nagar has come up in the area in question, Jain temple and roads have been constructed. In case award has not been passed so far, the Land Acquisition Officer is obliged to pass the award. 12. The stand of respondent No. 3, the auction purchaser, is that money has been ordered to be refunded and no appeal has been preferred against the decision rendered by the Single Bench. The respondent No. 3 is to abide by the decision in the instant matter. 13. The question for consideration is, whether there is lapse of the proceedings or the land stand absolutely vest in the State Government? 14. The respondent No. 3 is to abide by the decision in the instant matter. 13. The question for consideration is, whether there is lapse of the proceedings or the land stand absolutely vest in the State Government? 14. It is not in dispute that the land acquisition was a subject matter of challenge in two previous rounds; the petitions were also filed by appellant, in the first round, petitions were preferred in 1975 which were dismissed and thereafter on repealing of the UIT Act fresh bunch of 10 writ petitions were filed assailing the same acquisition which were dismissed in the year 1989 in the case of Bishambhar Dayal and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others. It is also apparent that Mohan Nagar has been constructed in the area in question which was acquired. Even in the additional pleas taken by the appellant-society in para 4, following is the averment made: '4. That the answering respondent will show at the time of the hearing that throughout the area of the aforesaid so called Scheme No. 3, namely Mohan Nagar Scheme, almost the entire land has been fully covered by the constructions made by the public after obtaining approval of the Municipal Board, Hindaun and as such the Municipal Board, Hindaun is guilty of frustrating this scheme. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in order to make money by selling this land in a malafide way and to snatch the land from the answering respondent. It is learnt that the State Government is also not interested incontinuing this scheme and the State Government seems to have abandoned this scheme and as such the writ petition is not maintainable.' 15. It is also apparent from the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Board that Mohan Nagar has been constructed. There is admission by the appellant-society in their return also. The road and Jain temple has also been constructed. The additional affidavit also contains that the appellant co-operative society is not in possession of the land which is found to be correct. The submission made in the additional affidavit that there is construction raised over the area in question found to be correct and is supported by stand of the appellant also. Thus, the question of lapse has to be judged in the back-drop of the aforesaid facts. 16. The submission made in the additional affidavit that there is construction raised over the area in question found to be correct and is supported by stand of the appellant also. Thus, the question of lapse has to be judged in the back-drop of the aforesaid facts. 16. Section 52(4) of the UIT Act, 1959 provides that when a notice under sub-section (1) is published in the Official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date of such publication, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Section 52(5) provides that after the land has vested in the State under sub-section (4), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. 17. Since in this case construction has already been raised, as apparent from the pleadings of the parties, we are of the opinion that vesting of the land is absolute and there is no lapse of the proceedings once the constructions over the land in question have been raised. Sections 52(4), 52(5), 52(6) and 52(7) are quoted below: '52(4). When a notice under sub-section (1) is published in the official Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date of such publication, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 52(5). Where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (4), the State Government may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. 52(6). If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the State Government may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. 52.(7). 52(6). If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (5), the State Government may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. 52.(7). After the land has been acquired and its possession taken, the State Government shall, on payment of the amount of compensation as determined under Section 53, 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: Provided that such transfer of the land may be made to the Trust or to any other prescribed authority or the department of the Government without recovering any amount:- (i) where the State Government is satisfied that any such land is urgently needed by the Trust, prescribed authority or department of the Government for carrying out improvement under the Act immediately, or (ii) where any such land is intended to be allotted free of charge to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or to person entitled under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955 ) to possess a site for a residential house in the `abadi' of the urban area free of charge.' 18. We are not impressed by the submission raised by Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that until and unless the compensation is paid, there is no vesting and there is no transfer of the land to the trust. In the instant case, it is apparent that the scheme was initiated by the UIT, it has been thereafter taken over by the Municipal Board and has been implemented. Once possession has been taken over, scheme has been implemented, in our opinion, there is no lapse of proceedings under Section 11A of Act of 1894 due to non-passing of award within two years. The question of vesting has been considered by the Division Bench in Bishambhar Dayal & others vs. State of Rajasthan & others (supra) in the case of appellant and the Division Bench of this Court has found that there is absolute vesting of the property in question in the UIT. Following discussion has been made in this regard: `13. The question of vesting has been considered by the Division Bench in Bishambhar Dayal & others vs. State of Rajasthan & others (supra) in the case of appellant and the Division Bench of this Court has found that there is absolute vesting of the property in question in the UIT. Following discussion has been made in this regard: `13. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have not challenged the Notifications issued under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the UIT Act but he challenged the notice issued to the petitioners in the month of August 1986, under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the UIT Act. We find no substance in this submission. The reason is that after the publication of the Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the UIT Act on December 19, 1974 by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 52 of that Act the land on and from the date of publication vests absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Under sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the UIT Act where any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (4), the State Government may by notice in writing order any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. It appears that it was on December 17, 1972 that to each of the petitioners a notice under sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the UIT Act was issued and each of the petitioners whose land was sought to be acquired challenged the notice in the earlier proceedings. It was only as a result of pendency of proceedings and stay order that the possession could not be taken by having recourse to the provisions of sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 52 of the UIT Act. It may be stated that the writ petitions were filed in 1975 challenging the Notification under Section 52(1) of the UIT Act which were disposed of only in the year 1983 and Special Appeals were dismissed in the year 1984. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now be allowed to challenge the notice issued under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 52 of the UIT Act. Therefore, the petitioners cannot now be allowed to challenge the notice issued under sub-section (5) or (6) of Section 52 of the UIT Act. If the petitioners are now allowed to challenge the same, firstly because they cannot be allowed to challenge because of earlier decision and secondly because allowing the petitioners to challenge the notice on the ground of delay, will mean giving premium to their own acts, they having come earlier in the writ petitions having sought stay order and special appeals having been dismissed as aforesaid in the year 1984, notice under sub-section (5) of Section 52of the UIT Act could be again issued. It has already been said earlier that the land which stood vested in the State Government cannot be divested more so in view of sub-section (4) of Section 60A inserted in the UIT Act by Section 4 of the Amendment Act of 1987. The further proceedings no doubt including taking of possession have to be in accordance with provisions of the Central Act including sub-section (3A) of Section 17 thereof, after tendering 80% of the estimated amount of compensation within a period of 6 months from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act of 1987.' 19. A further finding has been recorded that after the abolition of UIT Hindaun, all liabilities and assets were vested in Municipal Board, Hindaun and the Municipal Board has to discharge all the functions of the Trust as if it was a Trust. Following is the finding recorded in para 14 by the Division Bench of this Court: So far as argument of the petitioner that the UIT Hindaun had been abolished in 1976 and therefore there is no question of acquisition of any land for erstwhile UIT and that only such of the schemes of the UIT which remain un-executed could have been transferred to the Municipal Board Hindaun, we find no merit in it. A look at the provisions of chapter V of the UIT Act will show that the Trust can frame scheme for improvement of urban area for which it has been constituted whether under the orders of the State Government, or on its own initiative or on a representation made by the Municipal Board. The Trust has also the powers under the municipal law by virtue of Section 47 of the UIT Act. The Trust has also the powers under the municipal law by virtue of Section 47 of the UIT Act. It was under the provisions of Section 105 of the UIT Act that the UIT Hindaun was dissolved and its assets and liabilities were transferred to Municipal Board Hindaun. A Notification dated August 20, 1976 was published in that behalf in the Rajasthan Gazette dated August 20, 1976 Part VI Kha page 013. A perusal of the aforesaid Notification dissolving the UIT Hindaun along with UIT Gangapurcity will show that the said Notification was issued dissolving the aforesaid two UITs because in the opinion of the State Government it was not necessary to continue the two Trusts. That apart, when the State Government could have constituted/established the Trusts under Section 8 of the UIT Act for the purpose of carrying out improvement of any urban area in the State, whether a master plan in respect whereof has been prepared or not, it could abolish the Trust also. Merely because no scheme had been sanctioned, or if the sanction has not been executed wholly or partly, it cannot be said that there Trust could not be abolished by the State Government who has power to constitute or create it as aforesaid. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 105 of the UIT Act as well as by virtue of the aforesaid Notification of the State Government abolishing the UIT Hindaun, all liabilities and assets vested in the Municipal Board Hindaun and the Municipal Board has to discharge all the functions of the Trust as if it is a Trust. 20. Since vesting was absolute, colony has come up, road has been constructed, Jain temple is also in existence, we find that it was not open to the co-operative society to put the property to auction. 21. In case, so far compensation has not been disbursed and award has not been passed, let the proceedings be taken to its conclusion as far as possible within six months. 22. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.