JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the acquisition of land for which a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued followed by declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1984 and, finally, the award. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner-Luniyawas Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited submits that the lands in question was purchased under the agreement to sale. While issuing the notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, name of the petitioner Society was not mentioned against the land sought to be acquired. They could know about acquisition of land thus submitted objections under section 5A of the Act. The objections were not dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the order under section 5A of the Act of 1984. The declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued by the respondents beyond the period of one year from the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act. The declaration was thus illegal. The award has also been passed beyond the period of two years from the date of declaration thus even the final award is also hit by section 11A of the Act of 1894. In view of above, the declaration under section 6 as well as the award under section 11A of the Act of 1894 deserve to be set aside. 3. It is also submitted that after purchase of the land under agreement to sale, the colony was developed with allocation of plots to the members. The possession of the members of petitioner society exist on the land in question yet their objections under section 5A of the Act were not dealt with though it was mandatory. Taking into consideration the aforesaid also, impugned notification as well as the acquisition deserve to be set aside. Reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Eugenio Misquita & ors v. State of Goa & ors", AIR 1997 SC 3939 has been given apart from the judgment in the case of "Ashok Kumar & ors v. State of Haryana & anr", AIR 2007 SC 1411 . Reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Eugenio Misquita & ors v. State of Goa & ors", AIR 1997 SC 3939 has been given apart from the judgment in the case of "Ashok Kumar & ors v. State of Haryana & anr", AIR 2007 SC 1411 . In the cases referred to above, the Apex Court held that declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 should be made within a period of one year and limitation therein would be counted from the date of publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Act in the gazette. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Kamal Trading Private Limited (now known as Manav Investment and Trading Company Limited) v. State of West Bengal & ors", (2012)2 SCC 25 has also been referred on the issue of non-compliance of section 5A of the Act of 1894. 4. In the instant case, notification under section 4 was issued on 28.2.2008, whereas, declaration under section 6 has been made on 9.7.2009 i.e. beyond the period of one year thus the acquisition proceedings deserve to be set aside. 5. It is further submitted that the award was passed on 9.8.2011 and it was also beyond the period of two years of the declaration under section 6 of the Act thus entire acquisition vitiate. 6. Learned counsel for respondents have raised preliminary objections on locus of the petitioner-society. It is submitted that the land in dispute does not belong to the petitioner-society but to the khatedar, who was initially not impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. An application was filed and khatedar was then impleaded as respondent. 7. The petitioner society is claiming right based on agreement to sale though as per provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, rights do not confer. It is more so when the khatedar had purchased the land in the year 2006, whereas, the agreement to sale with the petitioner is of the year 1996 i.e. prior to purchase of the land by the seller. The agreement to sale has no sanctity in the eye of law if the sale deed has not been executed. 8. It is also stated that khatedar has appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer while the objections under section 5A were heard followed by his participation in the subsequent proceedings. The agreement to sale has no sanctity in the eye of law if the sale deed has not been executed. 8. It is also stated that khatedar has appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer while the objections under section 5A were heard followed by his participation in the subsequent proceedings. The respondent No.4 has agreed to get 25% of developed land in lieu of compensation. It is, however, clarified that initially original khatedar appeard before the Land Acquisition Officer and agreed to get allotment of 25% land but, subsequently, the khatedar purchased the land in the year 2006 appeared and had given his consent to get 25% developed land in lieu of compensation. In view of the consent to accept 25% of the land in lieu of compensation, nothing remains in the present case because award has been passed in terms of what has been accepted by the khatedar, hence, all the objections taken by the petitioner deserves to be ignored. 9. The arguments in reference to the acquisition has also been made, however, this Court is first dealing with the issue about maintainability of the writ petition in the hands of the petitioner society. The case of the petitioner Society is based on the agreement to sale entered in the year 1996 but no sale deed exists. It is also stated by learned counsel for the non-petitioners that agreement to sale was required to be registered in view of State amendment in section 17 of the Registration Act in the year 1976 but registration of the document does not exist despite its execution in the year 2006 thus cannot be considered, unless stamped and registered. 10. A reference of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short "the Act of 1882.") has also been given to show as to how sale of property is to be made. The petitioner society said to have possessed the land and allotted the plots to its members. There is nothing on record to show that agriculture land was ever converted or permitted for its use for non-agriculture purposes by invoking Section 90(b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") or otherwise. In view of above, even 'patta' does not exist in favour of members of the petitioner society. 11. There is nothing on record to show that agriculture land was ever converted or permitted for its use for non-agriculture purposes by invoking Section 90(b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") or otherwise. In view of above, even 'patta' does not exist in favour of members of the petitioner society. 11. In the light of the facts aforesaid, the issue of maintainability of writ petition is to be considered. A reference of Section 5A of the Act of 1894 has been given, thus it is quoted hereunder for ready reference apart from the definition of "person interested" given under Section 3(b) of the Act of 1894 :- "5A Hearing of objections.-(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, [either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government]. The decision of the [appropriate Government] on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act." "3(b) the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land; 12. The petitioner society submitted objections against the acquisition, however, it was not considered as they are not falling in the definition of 'person interested'. The objections were made based on the agreement to sale in the year 1996, though, the person, executed the agreement to sale, had entered into sale in the year 2006. The fact aforesaid shows that the person, sold the land, got the right to sale in the year 2006, on execution of sale deed in his favour. The agreement to sale was executed in favour of the society much prior to it. It may be that the person, entered into agreement to sale with the society, was also having agreement to sale in his favour in the year 1996. The question would be as to whether agreement to sale could have been executed without registration of agreement to sale and if executed in violation of the provisions of law, no right can be claimed. In the light of the aforesaid, can the petitioner society be said to be a "person interested" for raising objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and to maintain this writ petition. 13. A similar controversy came up before this Court in the case of The Krishna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & 2 Ors. v. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur & Ors. reported in 1993(3) WLC (Raj.) 583. The issue determined therein was about locus of the society to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It was answered in reference to the word "person interested". The society therein was not having registered sale deed in its favour and, otherwise, the agreement was against provisions of the Tenancy Act of 1955 apart from the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The allotment of plots was made to the members yet the housing society as well as allot tees were not held to be "person interested" so as to challenge acquisition proceedings. Relevant para 13 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "13. Only a person interested can challenge the acquisition proceedings. The allotment of plots was made to the members yet the housing society as well as allot tees were not held to be "person interested" so as to challenge acquisition proceedings. Relevant para 13 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "13. Only a person interested can challenge the acquisition proceedings. The question is as to whether the Housing Society, who has not purchased the land under any registered sale deed and it has only entered into an agreement to sell and is against the provisions of Tenancy Act and the LR Act, can it be said that the allot tees will be the persons interested and can they challenge the acquisition of the land. The expression 'person interested' has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Act and the said expression includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under the Act and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement effecting the land. Under Section 5-A(1) of the Act a right has been conferred on the person interested in the land as being needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company to file objections and for the purpose of Section 5-A of the Act a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under the Act: In my opinion, the Housing Society, who has only entered into an agreement to sell the agricultural land with the khatedars which has not been followed by any registered sale deed and in a case where the value of the property is more than Rs. 100/-, and even its allottees cannot be said to be the persons interested and all that can be said is that as and when the compensation is awarded to the khatedars, they may have right to claim their money out of the compensation, but they have no right of compensation for land acquired under the provisions of the Act. A Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhirajbhai Thakorebhai Patel and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Siran and others, LACC 1989-591 had the occasion to examine a similar question. A Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhirajbhai Thakorebhai Patel and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Siran and others, LACC 1989-591 had the occasion to examine a similar question. The Division Bench of that court referred to be expression 'interested person' in Section 3(b) of the Act as well as Section 5-A of the Act and in para 5 of the judgment said that a person who has only entered into an agreement to sell cannot be considered to have an interest in the land which has been acquired by the State and can have only a right to take the amount of advance from the compensation amount. The court said that an agreement to sell itself does not create any interest in or charge on the property. It will be seen that no objections were filed by the Housing Society or by the allottees after the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette or in other modes as prescribed therein and the objections were filed only by one or other khatedars or they had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer. The objections do not appear to have been filed by the Societies or the allottees of the land because as said earlier they were not the persons interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) or under Section 5A(3) of the Act. I am of the opinion, that neither the Housing Society nor the allottees have any locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings and on this ground alone the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed." 14. A similar issue came up for consideration again before this Court in the case of Kshetriya Samyukt Vikas Parishad Samiti v. State of Rajasthan & 2 Ors. reported in 1998(1) WLC (Raj.) 579. Therein, the society or association of persons was not found to be person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act of 1894. Relevant paras 16 to 18 of the said judgment are also quoted hereunder for ready reference : "16. In order to examine the contentions whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be filed in respect of a land acquisition proceedings, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are relevant. Relevant paras 16 to 18 of the said judgment are also quoted hereunder for ready reference : "16. In order to examine the contentions whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be filed in respect of a land acquisition proceedings, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are relevant. Before referring to those provisions it would not be relevant to consider that the writ petition could be filed for enforcement of the fundamental rights which are conferred by Part III and for, any other purposes. The present petition is not for enforcement of any fundamental right but is for any other purposes. It has been held by the Apex Court that the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged before the Civil Court and the only remedy, therefore, remains is the filing of the writ petition under Article 226. Now question arises as to who may file it. This matter has to be examined in the light of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Act has used three expressions, namely "person interested", "occupier" and "other person". Section 3(b) defines "person interested" who is having interest in the compensation in an easement affecting the land. Section 4, by which the preliminary notification is issued, refers to the consent of the "occupier" and that a notice is required to be given for entering into any building or house etc. Section 5A gives the power to the "person interested" for filing the objections. Section 9(2) provides that a notice is required to be given and all 'persons interested are to appear personally or by agent before the Collector. Section 10 refers to the power to require and enforce the making of statements as to names and interests. Section 11 provides to enquire into the objections of the 'person interested' and passing of an award, and under Section 12 the Collector is required to give immediate notice of his award to the 'persons interested' if they are not present personalty or by their representative when the award is made. Section 17 gives special powers in cases of urgency and for taking the possession the compensation is required to be offered to the 'person interested. Under Section 18 any person interested' who has not accepted the award, may make a written application to the Collector for reference to the Court. Section 17 gives special powers in cases of urgency and for taking the possession the compensation is required to be offered to the 'person interested. Under Section 18 any person interested' who has not accepted the award, may make a written application to the Collector for reference to the Court. The jurisdiction of the Court is given to the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Under Section 19(2) the statement along with the reference is to be delivered by the 'parties interested'. Section 21 provides that the scope of enquiry in every acquisition proceeding shall be restricted to the interests of the persons affected by the objection. Section 23 also refers to the 'Persons interested' in its various clauses of Sub-section (1) in respect of the matters to be considered in determining the compensation. Section 24 provides the matters which are not to be taken into consideration in determining compensation and refers to disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired, and under Section 28A the persons who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector have been considered to be 'persons interested' for redetermination of the amount of compensation. Section 29 provides apportionment of the compensation between several persons interested and payment of compensation is to be made to the 'persons interested' entitled thereto under Section 31. Section 33 refers the word "parties interested" for investment of the money deposited in other cases and under Section 35 notice is required to be given to the 'persons interested' for the temporary occupation and use of any waste or arable land needed for public purpose. 17. There are various other provisions which I need not refer. Admittedly in the present case the societies are not the "persons interested" and, therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition can be filed by them watching the interest of their members. The Land Acquisition Officer has considered the rights of members of the societies and found that the societies does not have any locus standi as the agricultural lands were not purchased by them by a registered sale deed. The constructions, if any, also not been made on the basis of permission given by the appropriate authority. 18. The samities were neither party before the Land Acquisition Officer nor it is a case of invoking the fundamental rights of any citizen. The constructions, if any, also not been made on the basis of permission given by the appropriate authority. 18. The samities were neither party before the Land Acquisition Officer nor it is a case of invoking the fundamental rights of any citizen. It has also not been proved that the members of the societies are suffering from poverty, disability or "are socially or economically disadvantaged and, therefore, could not approach this Court individually. The faces of different members of the societies are altogether different; some are only plot holders, others have constructed their house on such plots and even for the purpose of compensation the consideration is different in individual cases. In a land acquisition matter, writ petition can be filed only by the "person interested" and he can only be said to be the aggrieved person. The association cannot have any right to file a writ petition keeping in view the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act." 15. As per the judgments referred to above, the petitioner society cannot be said to be a "person interested" based on agreement to sale when no sale deed exists and, otherwise, it is not a registered agreement to sale, thus cannot be considered. 16. No sale deed exists in favour of the petitioner society and, otherwise, claim has been made by Khatedar in whose name land exist and the Notification was issued apart from declaration. In the light of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act also, the petitioner society cannot have a claim in absence of sale deed and even to claim compensation because compensation can be sought by a "person interested" and it can be when he is entitled to receive compensation. It is not that even stranger under law can be said to be 'person interested' to challenge the acquisition. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner society has cited judgments on the aforesaid issue. 18. The judgment in the case of Gautam Estate Private Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2009(2)WLC (Raj.)73, has been referred. The facts of the case are distinguishable as therein name of the petitioners were given while issuing the Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Their status was considered by the Court. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2009(2)WLC (Raj.)73, has been referred. The facts of the case are distinguishable as therein name of the petitioners were given while issuing the Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Their status was considered by the Court. They were held to be a 'person interested' as clear title in favour of the petitioner is not necessary to fall in the definition of 'person interested'. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner society has made a reference of Para Nos.58, 59, 60 and 62 of the judgment in the case of Gautam Estate Private Ltd. & Ors.(supra), thus are quoted hereunder for ready reference : "58. As regards the first objection of locus standi that the petitioners are neither covered by the definition of 'person interested' under section 3(f) of the Act of 1894 nor they could be said to be 'person aggrieved' on account of the fact of selling the land prior to the acquisition. In reply to this submission, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the project of Nandan Green was deemed project and is one of the highly developed green residential projects and the petitioner being the developer and part of the present management are covered by the definition of 'person interested' as well as 'aggrieved person'. Otherwise also, name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the impugned notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 and therefore, the respondents are estopped from raising this submission. 59. The definition of 'person interested' as referred in Section 3(f), 18 and 49 etc. Of the Act of 1894 has given wide meaning to the same for which clear title in favour of the person to file the writ petition is not necessary. 60. In Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 237 ), the Supreme Court has not restricted the meaning of 'person interested' to the persons who have appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer for compensation. The same has been further extended keeping in view Section 30 according to which, reference could be made by a person raising dispute as to the apportionment or as to the person to whom compensation is payable. The same has been further extended keeping in view Section 30 according to which, reference could be made by a person raising dispute as to the apportionment or as to the person to whom compensation is payable. The said judgment was followed by the Gauhati High Court in a case reported in Thanqba Kom v. The State of Manipur and others (AIR 1977 Gauhati 40), paras 5 and 6 of the same are reproduced as under: "5. Person interested" has been defined in Section 3(b) of the Act as follows: "3(b) the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land." "Interested" within the meaning of Section 18, in our opinion, means 'admittedly interested' or believed or found by the Collector to be interested in the land. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 237 have held: "There are two provisions, Sections 18(1) and 30, which invest the collector with apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. By subsection (1) of Section 18 the Collector is enjoined to refer a dispute as to the apportionment or as to title to receive compensation, on the application within the time prescribed by sub-section (2) of that section of a person interested who has not accepted the award. Section 30 authorises the Collector to refer to the Court after compensation is settled under Section 11, any dispute arising as to apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. A person shown in that part of the award which relates to apportionment of compensation, who is present either personally or through a representative, or on whom a notice is served under subsection (2) of Section 12, must if he does not accept the award; apply to the Collector within the time prescribed under Section 18(2) to refer the matter to the Court. But a person who has not appeared in the acquisition proceeding before the Collector may, if he is not served with notice of the filing, raise a dispute as to the apportionment or as to the persons to whom it is payable, and apply to the Court for a reference under Section 30, for determination of his rights to compensation which may have existed before the award, or which may have devolved upon him since the award ...... Again under section 18 the Collector is bound to make a reference on a petition filed by a person interested. The Collector is under Section 30 not enjoined to make a reference; he may relegate the person raising a dispute as to apportionment, or as to the person whom compensation is payable, to agitate the dispute in a suit and pay the compensation in the manner declared by his award." 6. It, therefore, follows that a 'person interested' in the land acquired and the consequent award, can only apply under Section 18 of the Act. Who will prima facie decide whether the applicant is the person interested? The answer is obviously the Collector. If the claimant's interest is disputed and the Collector is unable to decide or finds against him, the aggrieved claimant may make an application for reference under Section 30 of the Act, and not under Section 18, which requires the prima facie existence of interest of the claimant as a condition precedent to the application for reference. That being the position, in the instant case, as the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Collector, rightly or wrongly, as early as 10.04.1973 and that order not having been moved against by the petitioner, his application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in our opinion, is incompetent, and as such the learned Collector has committed no error in refusing to make the reference." 62. The respondents, who are throughout treating the petitioners as 'person interested' and 'person aggrieved' by referring their names in the notifications/notices issued under section 4, 5A and 6 of the Act of 1894, are estopped from raising the aforesaid submission after completion of the acquisition proceedings. The respondents, who are throughout treating the petitioners as 'person interested' and 'person aggrieved' by referring their names in the notifications/notices issued under section 4, 5A and 6 of the Act of 1894, are estopped from raising the aforesaid submission after completion of the acquisition proceedings. Otherwise, also, being developers and involved in the management of the said land in question, the petitioners are covered by the definition of 'person interested', as referred and discussed herein above with reference to Section 3(f), 18 and 49 of the Act of 1894. 20. The perusal of para 58 of the judgment in the case of Gautam Estate Private Ltd. & Ors. (supra) reveals that apart from many issues, it was found that name of the petitioners was given in the Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 thus the respondents were estopped to raise objections on the issue of locus. The court thereupon made reference to Sections 3(f), 18 and 49 of the Act of 1894 to hold that clear title in favour of a person maintained the writ petition is not necessary. The use of word "clear title" is of significance. It may be that a clear title does not exist but the title of some nature need to be there which can be recognised under the law. 21. In the instant case, agreement to sale exists in favour of the petitioner society but it is an unregistered document thus cannot be read and, otherwise, no sale deed exists in their favour. In view of above, society cannot make a claim of compensation so as to submit objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. The Court in the said judgment has given reference of the judgment in the case of Dr. G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 237 to hold that the Apex Court has not restricted the meaning of 'person interested', however, after going through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr.G.H. Grant (supra), I do not find that the issue in reference to the word "person interested" has been addressed and decided. In para 62, the word "person aggrieved" has been referred though it has not been used under the statue. In para 62, the word "person aggrieved" has been referred though it has not been used under the statue. It may be that "person aggrieved" may maintain a writ petition but it cannot be for an objection under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Therein, even earlier judgments of this Court in the case of Krishna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & 2 Ors.(supra) and Kshetriya Samyukt Vikas Parishad Samiti (supra) were not referred. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner society further made a reference of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 1982 P&H 519 . The case therein was again in reference to the acquisition proceedings. The purchase of land was made after issuance of Notification for acquisition yet the person was held to be "person interested". Therein, reference of the provision causing restriction on sale of land after the Notification under Section 4 was not made. A transaction after issuance of the Notification for acquisition is void and void transaction cannot have life to claim or to fall in the definition of "person interested", otherwise it would be nothing but to recognise void transaction, contrary to the statute. 23. As against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the issue was deliberated and decided by this Court almost in similar circumstances in the case of Krishna Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & 2 Ors.(supra). Therein also, the writ petition was filed by the society which had entered into an agreement to sale and challenged the acquisition proceedings. The writ petition was not held maintainable and the fact of the aforesaid case applies to the present case other than that in the case of Krishna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & 2 Ors.(supra), the agreement was even against the provisions of the Tenancy Act and Land Revenue Act. In the instant case, agreement to sale is unregistered thus cannot have any sanctity to claim benefit, unless compounded. 24. A reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors. reported in AIR 1970 SC 802 has been given by learned counsel for the petitioner society. The issue therein was altogether different. 24. A reference of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda & Ors. reported in AIR 1970 SC 802 has been given by learned counsel for the petitioner society. The issue therein was altogether different. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that disputed question of facts cannot be determined by the High Court. 25. In the instant case, maintainability of the writ petition has not been challenged on the ground that it involves disputed question of facts. The challenge to maintainability is on the ground of locus or that the petitioner society does not fall in the definition of "person interested", as defined under the Act of 1894 and in reference to Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Thus, judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Ors. (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case. 26. A further reference of the judgment in the case of Indu Bala Jain & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in RLR 2002(1) 527 has been given. Therein, the issue was different. Therein, the Housing Society had submitted the scheme and the JDA said to have regularised the scheme followed by approval of the building committee. After execution of agreement, the Court did not accept intermeddling or any unauthorised activity on the land, once stood allotted. 27. In the instant case, the petitioner society has submitted a map but there is nothing to show its approval. There exists no order for conversion of land or any other order to permit use of the land for non-agriculture purposes. The map or the scheme cannot be regularised unless it is converted for residential purpose or to say that it can be used for non-agriculture purposes. In view of above, the judgment in the case of Indu Bala Jain & Ors.(supra) has no application to the present case. 28. The petitioner society cannot be said to be "person interested" to raise objections against acquisition thus a challenge to the acquisition cannot sustain in the hands of the petitioner society. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, as I need not to deal with the issue of challenge to acquisition once the locus of petitioner society has been determined against it.