JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the notification dated 25.8.2011 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and the declaration under section 6 dated 29.3.2012. A restrain order has been sought against acquisition of land and not to disturb peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. The subsequent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 5.6.2013 was not challenged by seeking amendment in the writ petition till 2016. An application for amendment in the writ petition was filed in the year 2017 to challenge the award but it was dismissed finding it to be delayed, however, petitioners were permitted to raise the issues in reference to Part-VII of the Act of 1894 thus what remains is the challenge to the notifications issued under the Act of 1894 and not the award. 2. A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.7.2005 for a land measuring 101.38 hectares in Village Kukas, Jaipur. The acquisition therein was completed. Another notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.8.2011 and has been impugned herein. The petitioners submitted objections under section 5A of the Act on 21.10.2011. After hearing the objections, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted report on 20.3.2012. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 29.3.2012. 3. The draft award was thereupon prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.4.2013 and, on its approval, it was passed on 5.6.2013. It was during pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner Nathuram made an application for allotment of 25% developed land but it was on certain conditions. The said petitioner, thereupon preferred another application. It was with a condition of allotment of developed land 30 feet wide road near acquired land. It has been stated that other two petitioners have been throughout represented by Nathuram being part of the family of Motiram. The amount of compensation was deposited by the RIICO with the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur District along with reference under section 31(2) of the Act of 1894. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that after the notification under section 4 of the Act, petitioners submitted objections under section 5A of the Act. The objections were many fold. The amount of compensation was deposited by the RIICO with the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaipur District along with reference under section 31(2) of the Act of 1894. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that after the notification under section 4 of the Act, petitioners submitted objections under section 5A of the Act. The objections were many fold. The Land Acquisition Officer did not consider all the issues raised by the petitioners thus the report cannot be said to be in conformity to section 5A of the Act of 1894. In view of aforesaid, subsequent declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 deserves to be set aside. Reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & ors, (2012)2 SCC 25 has been given. It is to show that the Land Acquisition Officer is under an obligation to decide all the objections raised by the land holders. In view of failure to decide the objections, declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 becomes illegal. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has further made a reference on Part-VII of the Act of 1894. When acquisition of land is for a company, process given in Part-VII is to be followed. In the instant case, procedure given in Part-VII of the Act has not been followed though land has been acquired for Hero Motocorp. In the notification under section 4 of the Act, name of the company has not been given, rather, it is shown to be for RIICO, however, if the veil is lifted, it would become clear that the land was acquired for a company. Learned counsel for petitioners has given reference of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi & ors, (1992) 2 SCC 168 and Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana & ors, AIR 2013 SC 856 . 6. It is also stated that application submitted by the petitioner No.1-Nathuram was on his behalf and not on behalf of other family members. The request to allot 25% developed land in lieu of compensation was on certain conditions. It has not been complied by the RIICO thus aforesaid applications may not be taken into consideration though it was submitted by the petitioner Nathuram during pendency of the writ petition. The request to allot 25% developed land in lieu of compensation was on certain conditions. It has not been complied by the RIICO thus aforesaid applications may not be taken into consideration though it was submitted by the petitioner Nathuram during pendency of the writ petition. The prayer is to quash the notification dated 25.8.2011 issued under section 4 of the Act and declaration issued under section 6 of the Act of 1894. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have contested the writ petition. It is submitted that a challenge to the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 has been made though subsequent to its challenge, award was passed on 5.6.2013. The award has not been challenged by the petitioners. An application to amend the writ petition was filed after lapse of more than four years without justifying delay. Subsequent to the award, petitioner participated in the proceedings for grant of 25% developed land in lieu of compensation. On two different occasions, petitioner Nathuram had agreed to accept 25% developed land in lieu of compensation thus in absence of challenge to the award and subsequent applications, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. It is further stated that acquisition was held in two phases. The acquisition of land in first phase has already been completed and even the acquisition in second phase has been completed. All the khatedars have settled the compensation other than Nathuram and his family members. The other khatedars have been allotted 25% developed land in lieu of compensation. The land of the petitioners is surrounded by acquired land thus petitioners would not be having access to their land. The land in question is around 900 square meters or so. 9. An argument has been raised in reference to section 5A of the Act. The argument has been raised in ignorance of the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer does not act as Judicial Officer while deciding the objections under section 5A of the Act. The petitioners had raised several issues under section 5A of the Act. They were duly replied by the RIICO. It was stated that land was acquired for industrial purposes and the land in question is falling in between the industrial area thus has been acquired. 10. The issue of permission under Environmental laws was also replied. The petitioners had raised several issues under section 5A of the Act. They were duly replied by the RIICO. It was stated that land was acquired for industrial purposes and the land in question is falling in between the industrial area thus has been acquired. 10. The issue of permission under Environmental laws was also replied. The provisions of environmental laws would be enforced in strict terms while allotting the land after acquisition. The issue of mala fide was dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer so as the issue of non-utilisation of the land earlier acquired for RIICO. Learned Land Acquisition Officer found no mala fide in acquisition of land and the land in dispute otherwise falls in between the industrial area. During course of hearing, by the Land Acquisition Officer, land holders had agreed to receive compensation on market price or allotment of land in lieu of the land acquired. In view of above, objections raised by the petitioners under section 5A of the Act were properly dealt with and there is no illegality therein. 11. The challenge to the acquisition has also been made in reference to Part-VII of the Act of 1894 in ignorance of the fact that acquisition in question does not fall in the said Part. The notification under section 4 of the Act and declaration under section 6 does not show acquisition of land for a company so as to apply Part VII of the Act. It applies in given circumstances specified therein, which does not exist in the present case. 12. An argument in regard to acquisition against dead person has also been raised in ignorance of the fact that in the case of petitioners, acquisition is not against dead person hence petitioners have raised many issues even without its application, thus remain for the sake of it. The prayer is made accordingly to dismiss the writ petition. 13. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 14. The petitioners have challenged notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 with a further prayer to restrain the respondents to acquire the land. The prayer is made accordingly to dismiss the writ petition. 13. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 14. The petitioners have challenged notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894 with a further prayer to restrain the respondents to acquire the land. The writ petition was filed by nine petitioners, however, out of them, six petitioners later on made an application to withdraw it and, accordingly, now, petition remains in the hands of three petitioners of one and the same family of late Moti Ram. 15. Before acquisition in question, earlier acquisition of land for industrial purpose was completed. The notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.8.2011 in the present case. It was for extension of the industrial area and was at the request of RIICO. The acquisition of land was shown to be for public purpose. The petitioners submitted their objections under section 5A of the Act on 24.10.2011 through Advocate. It is by taking date of last publication under section 4 of the Act on 30.9.2011. The petitioners raised many objections which includes issue of mala fide apart from non-compliance of environmental laws etc. The objections raised by the petitioners during course of hearing have been referred by the Land Acquisition Officer in its order under section 5 of the Act of 1894. The RIICO submitted reply to the objections. It was clarified that the land previously acquired is not lying vacant, rather, it has already been allotted. It was also given out that the land is located at the distance of 400 to 450 meters from National Highway but is going to be used for extension of industrial area. So far as environmental laws are concerned, compliance thereof would be made while making allotment of land for industrial use. It was also stated that land in dispute is lying in the industrial area thus is not even appropriate for any other purpose. All the issues raised by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer were dealt with by the RIICO. The Land Acquisition Officer considered those objections though elaborate findings have not been recorded for each issue. It seems to be on the statement of the land holders not to challenge the acquisition if adequate compensation or equal land is given. All the issues raised by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer were dealt with by the RIICO. The Land Acquisition Officer considered those objections though elaborate findings have not been recorded for each issue. It seems to be on the statement of the land holders not to challenge the acquisition if adequate compensation or equal land is given. After the report under section 5A of the Act, a declaration under section 6 of the Act was made. 16. It is stated that while issuing declaration under section 6 of the Act, it was not shown to be in public interest ignoring the fact that while issuing the notification under section 4 of the Act, it was shown to be in public interest. After declaration under section 6, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 5.6.2013. It was not challenged immediately thereupon by amending the writ petition though petitioners were knowing about it as they participated in the subsequent proceedings for settlement of compensation and it was immediately after the award. 17. The petitioner Nathuram prayed for allotment of 25% developed land in lieu of compensation and made applications on two different occasions. In pursuance of the prayers, respondents even carved out plots and other than three petitioners herein, all have been given 25% developed land in lieu of compensation. Three plots have been carved out for the petitioners also. The development of the area is in satisfaction of the prayer made by the petitioners and, accordingly, other than three petitioners, all have withdrawn the writ petition. Petitioner Nathuram is said to acting on behalf of his other family members. 18. The challenge to the award was not within reasonable time. The application to amend the writ petition filed after lapse of four years thus was not accepted hence writ petition can be dismissed on the ground aforesaid. The petitioners have failed to give any justification for delay to challenge the award when it was in their knowledge. Accordingly, due to subsequent development, writ petition can be dismissed with a direction to the respondents to allot 25% developed land in fulfilment of the request made by the petitioner-Nathuram. It would be in lieu of compensation though petitioners would be entitled to get separate compensation for the structure or improvement exist in their land. 19. Accordingly, due to subsequent development, writ petition can be dismissed with a direction to the respondents to allot 25% developed land in fulfilment of the request made by the petitioner-Nathuram. It would be in lieu of compensation though petitioners would be entitled to get separate compensation for the structure or improvement exist in their land. 19. In view of the above, even if the order on the objections under section 5A of the Act of 1894 is not elaborate, subsequent development in the case i.e. award and the application of the petitioner Nathuram to accept 25% developed land in lieu of compensation need to be taken into consideration. 20. Learned counsel for petitioners has made reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamal Trading Pvt Ltd v. State of West Bengal & Ors, (2012)2 SCC 25. The order therein was passed without hearing the petitioners thus was held to be improper and it was further held that the Land Acquisition Officer should have dealt with objections carefully. It is no doubt, true that hearing on the objection under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 needs to be given. In the present case, the report was given after hearing the petitioners. The objections were replied by the RIICO and has been mentioned in the report. 21. Learned counsel for respondents have also referred judgment of the Apex Court on the same issue in the case of Sam Hiring Co. v. A.R. Bhujbal and Ors. (1996)8 SCC 18 . It was held that the Land Acquisition Officer was not required to elaborately deal with the objections and submit his report as the Land Acquisition Officer is not a Judicial Authority or quasi-judicial authority. Para 5 & 6 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:- 5. The question then is: whether the appellant is entitled to the further hearing? After the report was submitted by the Executive Engineer with regard to the objections raised by the appellant, the Division Bench of the High Court has pointed out that the Land Acquisition Officer had considered the objections after hearing him and with a view to satisfy himself whether the objections raised by the appellant were tenable, he required factual material and so he called for the report from the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer's report was submitted clearing the position and the finding is not adverse to the appellant but beneficial to him. Therefore, the need to give further opportunity does not arise nor is there any need to call the Executive Engineer for cross-examination. Accordingly, the principle of natural justice has not been violated. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer is not a judicial authority or a quasi judicial authority. He exercised the power Under Section 5A, as an administrative authority. But the Act requires that he should consider the objections and, if asked, to give an opportunity of hearing. In this case, opportunity of hearing was given and the objections raised were considered. The principle of natural justice has been complied with. He was not required to elaborately deal with each of the objections and submit the report. Considered from this perspective, we do not think that there is any error of law warranting interference. 22. Similar view was taken in the case of Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan v. F.N.Rana, Commissioner, Baroda Division & Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 648 . Therein also, same view was taken as has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Sam Hiring Company (supra). 23. In view of aforesaid, Land Acquisition Officer cannot be termed to be a Judicial Authority or quasi-judicial authority but, then, even as an Administrative Officer, he needs to consider the objections. In the instant case, the issue raised by both the parties has been narrated though finding has not been recorded elaborately. The fact aforesaid is relevant but taking into consideration that the total land involved now is only 900 sq. yards or so and is falling between the industrial area where the petitioners would not be having access after the surrounding land is occupied and all the objections raised by the petitioners have been replied by the RIICO, I am not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for petitioners. 24. The petitioners have even challenged the land acquisition, said to be falling in Part-VII of the Act. For ready reference, sections 38A and 39 of the Act of 1894 are reproduced here as under- [38A. 24. The petitioners have even challenged the land acquisition, said to be falling in Part-VII of the Act. For ready reference, sections 38A and 39 of the Act of 1894 are reproduced here as under- [38A. Industrial concern to be deemed Company for certain purposes.- An industrial concern, ordinarily employing not less than one hundred workmen owned by an individual or by an association of individuals and not being a Company, desiring to acquire land for the erection of dwelling-houses for workmen employed by the concern or for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith shall, so far as concerns the acquisition of such land, be deemed to be a Company for the purposes of this Part, and the reference to Company in [sections 4, 5A, 6, 7 and 50] shall be interpreted as references also to such concern.] 39. Previous consent of [appropriate Government and execution of agreement necessary.- The provisions of [sections 6 to 16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 to 37 (both inclusive) shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any company, [under this part], unless with the previous consent of the [appropriate Government], nor unless the Company shall have executed the agreement hereinafter mentioned. 25. Part-VII of the Act has no application to the present case which is coming out from bare perusal of notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act. The land has not been acquired for a company but for a Corporation, namely RIICO. In view of above, Part-VII of the Act does not come in picture. It is, however, alleged that the land was actually acquired for a company and, for that, veil is to be lifted. 26. The perusal of notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act does not reveal acquisition of land for a company. If the land has been acquired for development of industrial area, obviously, it may result in allotment to an industrial establishment. It can be to an institution or firm or a company but taking into consideration subsequent allotments, it cannot be presumed that the land was acquired for a company. There may be even proposal for allotment of land to a company but by itself, Part VII would not apply. It can be to an institution or firm or a company but taking into consideration subsequent allotments, it cannot be presumed that the land was acquired for a company. There may be even proposal for allotment of land to a company but by itself, Part VII would not apply. The petitioners have raised the issue aforesaid while submitting objections under section 5A of the Act but, subsequently, it seems to have not pressed during the course of hearing by the Land Acquisition Officer. In any case, even if objection was raised and had not been pressed before the Land Acquisition Officer, this court allowed to raise it while dismissing the application for amendment in the writ petition to challenge the award. Accordingly, the argument in reference to Part VII of the Act has been considered. The subsequent allotment of land in favour of a company cannot be presumed when a request for acquisition of land was made by RIICO. 27. Learned counsel for petitioners has made reference of several judgments which are not only in reference to section 5A of the Act but in relation to other issues as well. The judgments aforesaid have been considered but finding that after notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act, award has been passed and was not challenged immediately on its publication thus the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. The notification merged in the award. The delay in seeking amendment in the writ petition remained unexplained. 28. The petitioners through Nathuram have prayed for allotment of 25% developed land in lieu of compensation. It is, however, stated that said request was made only by Nathuram. It is alleged that he was acting not only on his behalf but on behalf of family members also. In the light of the subsequent developments, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to allot 25% developed land to the petitioners in lieu of compensation in accordance with the circular issued by the Government and it would be in satisfaction of the request made by the petitioners. It would be on 30 feet wide road without any obstruction on it. The needful would be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 29. It would be on 30 feet wide road without any obstruction on it. The needful would be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 29. The petitioners would further be entitled to receive compensation for structure or improvement and, accordingly, compensation would be given pursuant to the award. The petitioners would be at liberty to seek reference if the compensation is not adequate. In view of above, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act of 1894. The writ petition stands disposed of with the directions given above.