JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners cast a challenge, upon, (a) notification issued by the respondents under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act; (b) vis-a-vis declaration issued under Section 6, of, the Land Acquisition Act, (c) and, upon, the apt award pronounced, vis-a-vis, the lands of the petitioner, as brought to acquisition. (d) In sequel thereto, the petitioners also seek quashing, of, the respective therewith Annexures, as, embodied in Annexures P-1, P-9, and, P-11. 2. The petitioners'' land was acquired, for, enabling respondent No.4, to, establish school, residential colony, and, other ancillary therewith developmental activities. The apt notification under Section 4, of, the Land Acquisition Act, stood, issued on 13.04.2006, and, it sequelled pronouncement, of, an award, on 19.04.2008. However, prior therewith, as, evinced from Annexure P-4, annexure whereof, comprises, the, meteings, of, purported compliances, vis-a-vis, the peremptory requirements, imperatively, enjoined to be borne in mind, and, as stand encapsulated, in, Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963, rule whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- "4. Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings. (1) Whenever a company makes an application to the appropriate Government for acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the Collector to submit a report to it on the following matters, namely :- (i) that the company has made its best endeavour to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of the acquisition; (ii) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the person interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed; (iii) that the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose; (iv) that the area of land proposed to be acquired is not excessive; (v) that the company is in a position to utilise the land expeditiously; and (vi) where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of that land. (2) The Collector shall, after giving the company a reasonable opportunity, to make any representation in this behalf, hold an enquiry into the matters referred to in sub-rule (1) and while holding such enquiry he shall :- (i) in any case where the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural land, consult the Senior Agricultural Officer of the district whether or not such land is good agricultural land; (ii) determine, having regard to the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable in respect of the land, which, in the opinion of the Collector, should be acquired for the company; and (iii) ascertain whether the company offered a reasonable price (not being less than the compensation so determined), to the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired. Explanation.-For the purpose of this rule "good agricultural land" means any land which, considering the level of agricultural production and the crop pattern of the area in which it is situated, is of average or above average productivity and includes a garden or grove land. (3) As soon as may be after holding the enquiry under sub-rule (2), the Collector shall submit a report to the appropriate Government and a copy of the same be forwarded by that Government to the Committee. (4) No declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under section 6 of the Act unless- (i) the appropriate Government has consulted the Committee and has considered the report submitted under this rule and the report, if any, submitted under section 5A of the Act; and (ii) the agreement under section 41 of the Act has been executed by the company." drawing, of, annexure whereof, pointedly appertaining, vis-a-vis, clauses (v), and, (vi) of sub-rule (2), to, Rule 4 thereof, (i) and, it makes candid echoings, qua apart, from, the lands of the petitioners herein, purportedly falling, in, the apt category, of, good agricultural land, there existing alternative suitable sites, and, qua thereupon, the acquisition of the petitioners'' land, rather being avoidable besides unnecessary. However, subsequent thereto, Annexure P-6, embodies a report drawn, under, Section 5-A, of, the Land Acquisition Act, by the Collector concerned, wherein contrary therewith echoings hence stand unfolded. However, subsequent thereto, Annexure P-6, embodies a report drawn, under, Section 5-A, of, the Land Acquisition Act, by the Collector concerned, wherein contrary therewith echoings hence stand unfolded. The report borne in Annexure P-6, also encapsulates, the objections reared therebefore, by the landowners concerned, objections whereof, stand, extracted hereinafter:- "The gist of objections is as under:- 1. That already sufficient land had been acquired for the use of the company and presently 300 bighas of land is lying vacant which can be used for school purpose. 2. That the acquisition of private land for commercial purpose is not justifying. 3. That the area which is being acquired is forest land and non forest activities over this land cannot be allowed. 4. That the area being acquired is cultivated and there are civil structures also over this land. 5. That if this area is subjected to extraction of stones, it will have adverse implications. 6. That the company has not fulfilled its promises of opening a college, hospital and providing employment. 7. That the balance area of Khasra No.102/72 measuring 155.6 bighas be acquired for the stated purpose. 8. That the acquisition is being done with malafied intention and it do not serve any public interest. 9. That the company had applied for the acquisition of land for similar purpose in village Syar but after the proceedings u/s 9 the company had made a statement that they do not require this land. 10. That subsequently the company had applied for the acquisition in village Nauni and when the Award was to be announced it further requested the Govt. not to proceed further with this acquisition as well therefore, the govt. machinery was misused. 11. That there is Govt. land adjacent to factory which can be used for this purpose. But the company has decided to displace the whole of Gram Panchyat Darlaghat. 12. That this acquisition will make landowners landless. 13. That publicity of notification was not made as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894." However, the aforesaid objections, in operative part thereof, rather obviously stood overridden, and, also in paragraph No.7, of, the report, para whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:- "7. That during hearing of objections on 4.7.2005, this fact was brought in the notice of my predecessor by the Advocate of the objectors that an area of 155.6 bighas comprising of Kh. NO. That during hearing of objections on 4.7.2005, this fact was brought in the notice of my predecessor by the Advocate of the objectors that an area of 155.6 bighas comprising of Kh. NO. 102/72 is lying idle on the spot, and, the same be acquired for the school purpose. The company official present during hearing had suggested that demarcation of the area can be done by revenue officials. I had asked the Tehsildar/Naib-Tehsildar, Arki vide my latter dated 22.11.2005 to accomplish the demarcation on spot and submit his report, vis-a-vis, availability of 155.6 bighas land of Khasra No.102/72 on spot. The Naib Tehsildar has submitted his report. This report has been prepared after visiting the sot. It provides that there is overlapping of boundaries between villages Pichhour and Rouri, due to which this so called balance area of Khasra No.102/72 is not prevalent on spot. Although, in revenue record, it appears that some area remains balance against Khasra No. 102/72 and to this effect report was also submitted to the Govt. of H.P. by this office vide letter dated 28.06.2005. But this has no relevance. Because, it has become clear after demarcation that due to overlapping in village boundary no such area is prevalent on spot as such, the request of the objectors cannot be considered. The factual position is that 145.1 bighas of land is in continuity to the land already acquired for plant/colony purpose of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. And appears best suited for school purpose. The factual position is that 145.1 bighas of land is in continuity to the land already acquired for plant/colony purpose of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. And appears best suited for school purpose. It was only after considering all related aspects by revenue officials the report for the issuance of inescapbility certificate was forwarded to DC Solan and the inescapability Certificate for the acquisition was issued by DC Solan, therefore, considering the spot position as per the report submitted by Naib Tehsildar and other related aspects the objection becomes irrelevant, hence, rejected." (a) rather clear vivid underlinings stand borne, qua, the land Acquisition Collector concerned, bearing in mind (b) the report prepared by the Naib Tehsildar concerned; (c) the apt afore report prepared by the Naib Tehsildar, being a sequel of his visiting the spot, (d) qua, the, purported balance area, of, Khasra No.102/72, not existing on the spot, despite, the revenue record making a reference in respect thereof; (e) that the apt aforesaid conflict, with, the earlier therewith report, as, borne in Annexure P-4, standing enunciated therein, to, stand sparked rather by a demarcation of the spot, held, by the Naib Tehsildar concerned, (f) hence enabling therefrom unearthings, qua it, arising from overlapping(s) in the village boundaries, conspicuously, with the factual position, as pronounced in the apt demarcation report, as, stood borne in mind by the authority, rendering Annexure P-6, rather revealing qua the land in respect whereof, an apt proposal for its acquisition, stood mooted, rather holding contiguity, visa-vis, the hitherto pre-acquired land, for, respondent No.5, for plant/colony purposes, and, it being best suited for school purposes. 3. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends (i) that with Annexure P-4, prepared earlier, vis-a-vis, the subsequent therewith prepared, borne in Annexure P-6, (ii) and, with Annexure P-4, making a pronouncement qua the land, borne, in khasra No. 102/72, while being classified as Ghasni land, and, its being subjected to acquisition, rather being more appropriate, than, the acquisition of the petitioners'' land, classified, as, good agricultural land, (iii) thereupon, with the ingredients, of, clause (vi) of sub-rule (2) to Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 rather standing affirmatively satiated, vis-a-vis, the petitioners'' land, (iv) thereupon, the government, could suitably omit to put the petitioners'' land to acquisition, (v) contrarily he submits that with, its, yet meteing credence, vis-a-vis, Annexure P-6, and, thereafter its proceeding, to bring to acquisition, the petitioners'' land, does rear, an, inference, of the apt statutory powers, as, exercised, within, the domain of the apt statutory provisions, rather standing colourably exercised, besides their exercise being stained, with, the deep pervasive vices, of, mis- representations, and, fraud hence, for, merely benefiting respondent No.5. 4. Before proceeding to fathom, and, adjudicate upon the aforesaid submission, it is, of, utmost significance (a) to also test the validity of the submission addressed before this Court, submission whereof, is, rested, upon, qua unless the apt peremptory compliance, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, stood meted, (b) thereupon, the entire acquisition proceedings, in their entirety, being construable to stand vitiated. In making the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has, placed reliance, upon, a verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered, in a case titled as State of Gujarat vs. Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhai & Ors. , (1975) AIR SC 629, the relevant paragraph No. 22 whereof, stands extracted hereinafter:- "22. For these reasons, we hold that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. There was no compliance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Act. There was no prior agreement between the State and the Company before provisions contained in Sections 4 to 37 were put into force. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in the present case does not satisfy the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Companies Acquisition Rules. There was no prior agreement between the State and the Company before provisions contained in Sections 4 to 37 were put into force. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in the present case does not satisfy the provisions contained in Rule 4 of the Companies Acquisition Rules. The owners of the land are entitled to opportunity of being heard in an enquiry under Rule 4 and enquiry under Section 40 of the Act. No such opportunity was given to the owners" besides has placed reliance, upon, a judgment rendered in a case titled as State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Ambalal Haiderbhai & Ors. , (1976) 3 SCC 495 , the relevant paragraphs whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "4. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala & Ors. , (1969) AIR SC 198) and reiterated in A. K. Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , (1970) AIR SC 150 rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its content should be for a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the law under which the enquiry is held, and the constitution and nature of duties of the Tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that purpose. Let us, therefore, advert to the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules which requires the appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings. 10. Our view is reinforced by the following illuminating observations made by the learned Chief Justice in State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhai & Ors , (1975) AIR SC 629: "The contention of the State that the enquiry under rule 4 is administrative and that the owner of the land is not entitled to be given an opportunity to be heard at the enquiry cannot be accepted for these reasons. v. Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhai & Ors , (1975) AIR SC 629: "The contention of the State that the enquiry under rule 4 is administrative and that the owner of the land is not entitled to be given an opportunity to be heard at the enquiry cannot be accepted for these reasons. The enquiry under rule 4 shows that the Collector is to submit a report among other matters that the Company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed. The persons interested therein are the owners of the land which is proposed to be acquired. The company at such an enquiry has to show that the company made negotiations with the owners of the land. The owners of the land are, therefore, entitled to be heard at such an enquiry for the purpose of proving or disproving the reasonable efforts of the company to get such land by negotiation. The contention on behalf of the State that the owners of the land will get an opportunity when an enquiry is made under section 5-A of the Act is equally unsound. Section 17 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of section 5-A shall not apply, and if it does so direct a declaration may be made under section 6 at any time after the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the enquiry under section 5A may not be held." Reliance thereupon, by the learned counsel appearing, for the petitioners, for, hence his erecting an argument, qua a stain of illegality, hence, imbuing the initiation, of, acquisition proceedings, hence, by the appropriate government, for bringing to acquisition the lands, of, the landowners, (a) stains whereof standing awakened, by its omitting to comply, with, the peremptory mandate, of, Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, rather would be omnibusly applicable to the facts at hand, (b) besides their respective ratio decidendi, would hence with aplomb, rather be applicable, vis-a-vis, the factual scenario extantly available, only upon, the factual matrix available thereat, being evidently pari materia, with, the factual matrix extantly available. Imperatively this Court, is, enjoined, with, a peremptory obligation to hold an ad nauseam, incisive analysis, of the judgment relied, upon, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in his making a submission (c) qua an invalidatory effect standing begotten, by the initiation, of acquisition proceedings,by the appropriate Government, for, hence ultimately bringing to acquisition the lands, of the land owners, (d) vice whereof stands engendered, by demonstrable non compliance, by it, with the peremptory mandate, of, Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. An indepth analysis whereof, unveils, the prima donna factum, of, the aforesaid decision recorded by the Hon''ble Apex Court, standing confined, to the State of Gujarat, within, whose territorial domain, the, lands reflected in the judgments, of, the Hon''ble Apex Court rather stood located, (e) preponderantly/predominantly, by a palpable display, of, the State of Gujarat, rather effectuating valid amendments, to Sections 39 and 40, of, the Land Acquisition Act, whereunder the statutory phrase occurring therein, "either on the report of the Collector under Section 5-A, sub-section 2 or by an inquiry held as hereinafter provided", hence stood deleted. Since, the effect of the apposite amendment effectuated, in, the State of Gujarat, to the apposite hereinabove referred portion, occurring in Section 40 of the Act, (f) is, of thereupon an empowerment standing lent to an inference, of, in the State of Gujarat, rather validity standing imputed, to, initiation, of, apt processes, by the appropriate Government, for, hence bringing to acquisition, the, lands of the landowners, as, located within its territorial domain, (g) not, on any objective satisfaction, standing, drawn by the appropriate government, on, the report of the Collector, as, submitted either under Section 5A sub section 2, nor, upon, any objective satisfaction drawn, by it, on an inquiry held by the competent authority, within, the statutory contemplations, borne, in, sub section (1) of Section 40, of, the Land Acquisition Act, (h) contrarily rather qua sanctity hence standing imputed, to initiation, of, apt proceedings, by the Government of Gujarat, for, hence bringing, to, acquisition the lands, of, landowners, as, located within the territorial domain of Gujarat, only, when prior to issuance, of, a notification, under, Section 4 besides prior to issuance, of, notifications, respectively under, Sections 6 and 7, of the Act, the appropriate Government, on, invoking Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, (i) its thereafter on receiving, the apposite report, from, the quarter concerned, its drawing an objective satisfaction, qua, all the parameters encapsulated therein, hence standing satiated, (j) whereupon its hence holding authorization, to, issue further notification(s), drawn, under Sections 4, 6, and, under Section 7 of the Act. In other words, only qua the lands located, within, the territorial domain of Gujarat, the appropriate Government thereat, prior to issuance of notifications, under, Sections, 4, 6, and, under Section 7 of the Act, by hence invoking Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, also, thereafter on its receiving, the apposite report, from, the Collector concerned, hence draws, an objective satisfaction, qua hence the lands of the landowners, proposed to be subjected to acquisition, hence, satiating all the para meters, as, enshrined therein, rather would thereafter, (k) also hence stand foisted with the apt statutory leverage(s), for, hence validly initiating, further proceedings, under, the Act, for hence bringing to acquisition, the, lands of the landowners, located within its territorial domain, and, for the benefit of the apposite company. (l) The apt sequitur of the aforesaid inference, is, of the workability of Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, standing, generated only, upon, the lands of those landowners, whose lands stand located, within, the territorial domain, of, the State of Gujarat. (m) Concomitantly, AND unless, the peremptory mandate, of, Rule 4, stood strictly complied with, by the appropriate Government, in, the State of Gujarat, before, its, initiating proceedings, for bringing to acquisition, hence the lands of the landowners, as, stand located within its territorial domain, and, for the benefit of a company, thereupon, the apposite acquisition proceedings initiated by it, would rather face apt omnibus nullification. However, when the amendment aforesaid, as stood carried out, in the hereinabove referred apposite portion, of, Section 40 of the Act, only, in, the State of Gujarat, and, not, in,the State of Himachal Pradesh, naturally rendered them applicable only qua the State of Gujarat, (n) besides naturally rendered them to be inapplicable qua the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereat, the lands of the landowners, as put to acquisition, by the appropriate government hereat, and, for the benefit of the Company, rather stand located, (o) preeminently also on the score, of, in Himachal Pradesh, the, competent authority hereat, unlike, in, the State of Gujarat, whereat, the competent authority, held valid amendments, to the hereinabove apt portions of Section 40 of the Act, not rather, holding any amendment, to, the afore-referred apt portions, of, Section 40 of the Act, (p) as a corollary, the verdicts, of, the Hon''ble Apex Court, enjoining peremptory compliance , by the appropriate Government, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Rule 4, before its validly initiating proceedings, for acquisition of lands, for the benefit of a Company, would imperatively, be inapplicable qua Himachal Pradesh, whereat, the lands of the land owners stand located. Reiteratedly, since the aforesaid prima donna fact, of, hence an imperative legal necessity, standing enjoined, only, in the State of Gujarat, qua, the, preeminent legal vigor, enjoined vis-avis, the report of the Collector, alluded, to herein-above, furnished by him under Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, thereupon, the, report furnished under Section 5A of the Act, rather, cannot either suffer emasculation nor can its effect, hence stand dissipated. 5. 5. Furthermore, when, the competent authority, in, Gujarat has in the apt portion referred to hereinabove, borne in Section 40, of, the Act, has held valid amendments thereto, (a) whereunder no sanctity stands imputed, to either the report, of the Collector, as, submitted by him, to the appropriate Government, under Section 5A(2) of the Act or to an inquiry held by the Collector concerned, under Section 40 of the Act, (b) rather as an apt corollary, when thereat, for,, the initiation of proceedings, under, the Act, for, hence securing an aura, of, validation, rather ordain, upon the appropriate Government of Gujarat, to, as an indispensable precursory step thereto, hence, beget adherence, to, the mandate of Rule 4, of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, (c) contrarily when in Himachal Pradesh, no compatible therewith amendment stands held, to Section 39 of the Act, by the competent authority hereat. Imperatively, hence when rather effectuations, of, alike therewith amendments, would hence engender, an alike therewith, the, aforesaid inference qua indispensability, of, compliance thereto, also by the appropriate Government hereat, before its validly initiating, any proceedings, for bringing to acquisition, the, lands of the land owners, located within its domain, (d) whereas, with the competent authority, in Himachal Pradesh, not, effectuating any alike amendments, to Sections 39 and 40 of the Act, thereupon, an inference is, filliped, of the appropriate Government hereat, before initiating proceedings, under, the Act, for hence bringing to acquisition the lands of the land owners, located within its territory, not, standing enjoined, to mete any peremptory compliance, vis-a-vis, Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rule, (e) rather, it standing enjoined, to, before according its consent, to the competent authority, for putting into motion, the provisions, of, Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, rather being enjoined, to, stand objectively satisfied, qua, the imperativeness, of, initiation of proceedings, for, bringing to acquisition, the, lands of the land owners herein, upon, its perusing, a report of the Collector submitted to it, either under Section 5A(2) of the Act or on a report submitted to it, by the Collector concerned in sequel to his holding an inquiry, under, Section 40(1) of the Act. In sequel, when the report of the Collector concerned, as, submitted under Section 5A(2) of the Act, is, of 27th February, 2006, and, with the apposite notification, as, issued, by the competent authority under Section 4 of the Act, stands issued, subsequent thereto, (f) thereupon, the issuance of a notification, under, Section 4 of the Act, by the competent authority, conspicuously subsequent, to, the submission of the report, by the Collector concerned, under Section 5(A)(2) of the Act, to the appropriate Government, rather validates, the issuance, of, a notification under Section 4 of the Act, by the competent authority. 6. In aftermath, with the report, borne in Annexure P-6, whereunder, the authority concerned, benumbed, the prior therewith report, drawn, by the Land Acquisition Collector, purportedly, under, the provisions of Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, (a) with echoings therein holding affirmative leanings, vis-avis, the mandate, borne in clause (vi), of, sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 thereof, hence being meted satiation, (b) AND when, IT, apparently prima facie rather displays qua all the parameters, as, encapsulated in Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, ALSO begetting deference, (c) also when all the parameters enunciated in Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, hence stand embodied therein, and, when preceding thereof, the District Collector, Solan, through the revenue agencies, held an in-depth inquiry, does foist, an inference, of, even compliance, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Rule 4, rather standing accomplished, (d) rendering unnecessary, any compliance therewith, by the appropriate Government, even if assumingly hence Rule 4, rather holds any clout, qua for, rather purportedly validating the apt initiation of proceedings, by the appropriate Government, for, hence bringing to acquisition, the lands of the land owners. The report of the Collector District, Solan, is, comprised, in, Annexure P-6. It preceded the issuance of notifications, by the appropriate Government, under, Sections 4, 6, and, under Section 7 of the Act, issuance(s) whereof for reasons afore-stated, hence hold(s) validity(ies). The report of the Collector District, Solan, is, comprised, in, Annexure P-6. It preceded the issuance of notifications, by the appropriate Government, under, Sections 4, 6, and, under Section 7 of the Act, issuance(s) whereof for reasons afore-stated, hence hold(s) validity(ies). The apt portion of the report, as, submitted by the Collector, under Section 5A of the Act, (e) is depictive, of, the apt land owners, hence, participating in the apt exercise undertaken, by the, Collector concerned, imperatively prior to his, holding an opinion, as, embodied in Annexure P-6, (f) besides is manifestive of all the objections preferred, before the Collector concerned, by the land owners, rather standing in extenso, dwelt upon, by the Collector, Solan. Naturally the report, drawn, under Section 5A of the Act, and, as submitted by the Collector, to the appropriate Government, is, bereft of any vice, of its infracting, the, rule of audi alteram partem. 7. Consequently, with, substantial compliance hence occurring in the report submitted, under, Section 5A of the Act by the Collector, to, the appropriate Government, qua the mandate of Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules or substantial compliance thereto rather emanating therefrom, (a) thereupon, it would be insagacious, to insist upon, the appropriate Government to also beget compliance, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Rule 4, of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, (b) nor also it would be prudent for this Court, to, for, mere purported non-compliance, by the appropriate Government, with, the mandate of Rule 4, of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, hence proceed to nullify, the, proceedings for acquisition, as, launched by the appropriate Government, and, for the benefit of respondent No.5. 8. 8. In coming to the afore said inference, of, there being no enjoined necessity fastened, upon, the appropriate Government, to prior to issuance, of a notification, under, Section 4 of the Act, hence beget compliance, vis-a-vis, the mandate of Rule 4, of, the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, (a) also, while this Court, in, coming to record, the, aforesaid inference, of the report drawn under Section 5A, of the Act, and, as furnished, by the Collector concerned, to the appropriate Government, hence, holding a pedestal equivalent, to the one held, in law, by a report prepared by the Collector concerned, in sequel to an inquiry held by him, under, sub section (1) of Section 40 of the Act, (b) besides the report, drawn, under Section 5A of the Act, and, as submitted by the Collector to the appropriate Government, comprising the apt alternative mechanism, to the adoption, of, the procedure contemplated, in sub section (1) of Section 40 of the Act, (c) for thereupon foisting authorization(s), in the appropriate Government, to accord apt consent, to the competent authority, to initiate proceedings for bringing the lands of the land owners, to acquisition, this Court draws succor, from, a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case titled as M/s.Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd.versus Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors. , (1985) 2 SCC 152 , the relevant paragraphs 17, 21 and 24 whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "17. Reading the Act and the Rules and keeping in view the scheme of the Act, it is apparent, in our opinion, that before the issuance of S. 4 notification, there is no requirement as such of compliance with the procedure contemplated by R. 4 of the Rules. We are therefore unable to subscribe to the view that enquiry by R. 4 must precede the issuance of notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. Furthermore as indicated before certain matters which are required to be done under R. 4 cannot be done because the officer or the person authorised by him would have no authority unless notification under S. 4 is issued. 21. In our opinion when this Court observed that the report of the enquiry under R. 4 was a factor to be taken into consideration and "to issue thereafter S. 4 notification" was by general observation. 21. In our opinion when this Court observed that the report of the enquiry under R. 4 was a factor to be taken into consideration and "to issue thereafter S. 4 notification" was by general observation. It is undoubtedly true that a notification under S. 4 can be issued after enquiry under R. 4. But under the scheme of the Act, the converse is not correct i.e. the enquiry under R. 4 must always precede notification under S. 4 of the Act. In that decision this Court analysed the importance of S. 5A and it is after considering the report under R. 4 and report under S. 5A that notification under S. 6 will be issued. It is undoubtedly true that enquiry under R. 4(1) must precede action under S. 6 but we do not find reading the said decision of this Court in the context of the facts and circumstances and the contentions urged in that case that this Court laid down any proposition that enquiry under R. 4(1) must precede issuance of notification under S.4. Indeed as we have mentioned, before, notification under S. 4 would facilitate the matters, to be enquired under R. 4(1). 24. It appears to us that the reference to R. 4 in the context in which it was made was inadvertent. What perhaps the Court wanted to convey was the need of compliance of entering into agreement under S. 41 before the Issuance of notification under S.6 of the Act. Otherwise it appears that there was no enquiry under R. 4 of the Rules before issuance of the notification under S. 4 yet the notification under S. 4 was not quashed. The observation then in any event is obiter. 9. Dehors the aforesaid inferences, and, conclusions recorded by this Court, (a) this Court is yet enjoined, with, a solemn legal duty, to pronounce, upon the efficacy, of, the submission addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel appearing, for the petitioners qua the report, borne in Annexure P-6, being a sheer concoction, invention or a mechanism, deployed by the authority, who pronounced it, merely for benefiting respondent No.5, (b) thereupon, it warranting no imputation of any validity rather it being pronounced to be illegal, and, all subsequent therewith proceedings hence culminating, in, the pronouncement of an award, by the Collector concerned, being ordered to be quashed and set aside. The aforesaid submission would hold vigour, in case, the report, as, drawn by the Collector concerned, purportedly, under, the mandate of Rule 4, of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, and, as borne in Annexure P-6, (c) being a sequel, of, a thorough and incisive apt valid demarcation, being carried hence, at the relevant side, and, contrarily, the report borne in Annexure P-4, and, its hence making findings disconcurrent therewith, being hinged, upon, no valid demarcation standing carried, at, the relevant site. In making an apt pronouncement, in respect thereof, a reading of Annexure P-4, (d) discloses qua the pronouncement borne therein qua lands, borne in khasra No.102/72, standing described, in the revenue record, as Ghasni, and, it comprising the suitable alternative side, vis-a-vis, the lands of the petitioners, rather recorded, as, good agricultural land, (e) and, thereupon, the land borne in khasra No.102/72, being rather befittingly amenable for its acquisition, than, the petitioners'' land, rather apparently, is, hence made in sequel, to, a mere inspection of the apt revenue record, rather, being done. However, therein apart from the aforesaid echoings, as, borne therein, no pronouncement rather emanates, qua, after, the, mereinspection of the apt revenue record(s), there also standing rather conducted, a, valid demarcation of the relevant spot. However, therein apart from the aforesaid echoings, as, borne therein, no pronouncement rather emanates, qua, after, the, mereinspection of the apt revenue record(s), there also standing rather conducted, a, valid demarcation of the relevant spot. Consequently, it appears, that, the afore referred echoings, borne in Annexure P-4, being not made, in, sequel, to a valid demarcation, being conducted of the relevant site, (f) contrarily, with the para making a candid, and, vivid articulation, qua, the balance portion, of, khasra No.102/72, rather not existing on the spot, rather its depiction, in the revenue records, qua it existing in proximity, to the lands, brought to acquisition, being a sequel, of apt overlapping(s) in village boundaries, (g) besides with the afore echoings borne in annexure P-6, being further communicated therein, to rather make their apt upsurgings, upon, the Naib Tehsildar concerned, visiting the spot, and, his thereat conducting a valid demarcation, (h) thereupon, with the apt pronouncements, borne in Annexure P-6, and, occurring, in, paragraph No.6 thereof, and, pointedly anchored, upon, a valid demarcation, (i) whereas, reiteratedly, contrary therewith pronouncement(s) occurring in Annexure P-4, palpably remaining unanchored, upon, any valid demarcation, (j) thereupon, the, overriding effects of Annexure P-6, vis-a-vis, the trite apt overridden recitals, borne in under Annexure P-4, rather enjoin meteing, of, credence thereto, (k) more so, when no cogent evidence, for, hence belying the effect(s) of all the echoings, as, borne therein, stands adduced. In aftermath, the afore made espousal by the counsel, for the petitioners, is, rendered rudderless, and, warrants its being rejected. 10. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has proceeded to make a further contention, before this Court that (i) with Annexure P-10, making a pronouncement, hence, bearing concurrence with Annexure P-4, thereupon, his afore made espousal before this Court, rather remaining intact. 10. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has proceeded to make a further contention, before this Court that (i) with Annexure P-10, making a pronouncement, hence, bearing concurrence with Annexure P-4, thereupon, his afore made espousal before this Court, rather remaining intact. (ii) Even the afore addressed espousal, before this Court, by the counsel, for the petitioner, is extremely fragile, as, this Court, had, elicited from the quarters concerned, the, apt demarcation report, as, appertaining therewith, (iii) yet, the endeavour of this Court, to make elicitation(s), of, the apt record, proved abortive, as the authority concerned placed on record, a, certificate qua its standing destroyed, (iv) thereupon, this Court is defacilitated, to pronounce a verdict qua the report of the Naib Tehsildar, being a sequel, of his conducting, the apt valid demarcation, of the relevant site, or it being a sequel, of, his merely inspecting, the apt, revenue record. In sequel, the drawing, of, Annexure P-4, is, construable to be nonest, nor it supersedes, the, apt valid demarcation report, prepared by the Revenue Officer concerned, after his proceeding to visit the relevant site, and, as relied, upon, Annexure P-6, nor hence the effect, of, Annexure P-6, is, stripped, of its efficacy. 11. In holding the view qua both the inquiry contemplated in Section 40 of the Act, and, the report furnished by the Collector, under, Section 5A to the Government, both holding equivalent statutory solemnity, this Court, draws succor, from, a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Shyam Nandan Prasad and others versus State of Bihar and others , (1993) 4 SCC 255 , relevant paragraphs 15 and 21 whereof, stand extracted hereinafter:- "15. Now when we direct ourselves to the provisions of the Companies Act, Section 2 (10 provides that a company means a company as defined in Section 3. Section 3 defines company to be a company formed and registered under the Companies Act or an existing company as defined therein. "private company" has been defined to mean a company by the articles of which the right to transfer its shares, if any, is restricted and the number of its members is limited to fifty, but not including some persons detailed therein, and prohibits any invitation to the public to subscribe for any shares in, or debentures of the company. "private company" has been defined to mean a company by the articles of which the right to transfer its shares, if any, is restricted and the number of its members is limited to fifty, but not including some persons detailed therein, and prohibits any invitation to the public to subscribe for any shares in, or debentures of the company. In contrast, "public Company" residually means a company which is not a private company. "government Company" under Section 2 (18 means government company within the meaning of Section 617, which in turn says that a government Company means any company in which not less than 51 per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the central government or by any State government or governments or partly by the central government and partly by one or more State governments and includes accompany which is a subsidiary of a government Company as thus defined. So understood, the society of which the appellants are members could never be a government Company for no government has subscribed to its share capital. The society could not also be a private company for it has more than 50 members, the figure of membership put at 400. Since the society is neither a government Company nor a private company, the impediment of Section 44-B towards confining the choice of acquisition for a private company for one purpose is out. Since the society is not a private company, by process of exclusion it becomes under Section 3 of the Companies Act, a "public company" even though not formed and registered under the said Act but only by the statutory inclusion in Section 3 (e) of the Land Acquisition Act bringing in a cooperative society registered under a State law to be definedly a company as if a company registered under the Companies Act. All the same, the society as a public company would require to satisfy in an enquiry under Section 40 of the Act that it requires the land for any of the purposes mentioned in clauses (a),(aa) and (b) before it can obtain consent of the appropriate government on the basis thereof and enter into an agreement as envisaged under Section 41 before switching on to have the role of Section 6 onwards till Section 37 of the Act played. The importance of such enquiry and report as contemplated under Section 40, in the light of Section 41, is to serve a double purpose as it may steer an acquisition if Section 5- A was dispensed with because of urgency under Section 17 and secondly to provide a safe alternative should there be any fault in the conduct of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. So one or the other must be kept handy and if per chance one is defective, when both existing, the other can be deployed to satisfy the requirement of law. 21. Now here the distinction is made between a public purpose and a purpose for the company. The acquisition of land for a company is in substance for a public purpose as all those activities mentioned in Section 40 such as constructing dwelling houses and providing amenities for the benefits of workmen employed by it and construction of some work for public utility etc. serve the public purpose. The acquisition for the company and the purpose for it, can well be investigated under Section 5-A or Section 40, necessarily after the notification under Section 4. Reference may usefully be made to Babu Barkya Thakar v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra. It was the conceded case before the High court that there could be no acquisition for the respondent-Society without provisions of Section 40 of the Act being involved and complied with. In Babu Barkya case too, this court has taken the view that as provided in Section 39, the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act beginning with Section 6 and ending with Section 37 shall not be put into operation unless two conditions precedent are fulfilled, namely, (i) the previous consent of the appropriate government has been obtained and (ii) an agreement in terms of Section 41 has been executed by the Company. Such consent could be given if it was satisfied on the report of the enquiry envisaged by Section 5-A (2 or enquiry held under Section 40 itself that the purpose of the acquisition is for purposes as envisaged in Section 40. In this state of law, the plea set up on behalf of the appellants that when their Society could not be treated either as a private or a government company, it was no company at all so as to remain bound to comply with Ch. In this state of law, the plea set up on behalf of the appellants that when their Society could not be treated either as a private or a government company, it was no company at all so as to remain bound to comply with Ch. VII of the Act, is of no substance. The Society as a company is bound to satisfy the requirements of Section 40 before taking aid of S. 6 to 37 of the Act to promote its needed acquisition." 12. The instant writ petition, stands, filed by six landowners concerned, and, as is evident, on a reading, of the apt reply, co petitioners No.4 and 6, during, the course of drawing, of, proceedings under Section 18, of, the Land Acquisition Act, before the learned Reference Court, rather hence submitting therebefore, their respective affidavits, affidavits whereof, stand appended, with, the apposite reply, as Annexure R5/5, (a) and, therein visibly no challenge is cast, vis-a-vis, the validity of initiation, of, apt acquisition proceedings. The effect thereof, and, of two amongst six landowners, joining, as co-petitioners in the writ petition, besides when the other landowners concerned, whose lands also stood brought to acquisition, rather instituting, the, apt land reference petitions, before the learned reference Court, (i) is qua, thereupon, with, from, amongst six co-petitioners, only four not apt casting apt reference petition(s), before the learned Reference Court, nor theirs receiving any compensation, (ii) whereupon, rather four amongst, six co-petitioners, are too, hence, stand construed, vis-a-vis, other visibly numercially higher apt land owners, who, rather endeavoured, to, file apt reference petition(s), hence, before the learned reference Court, to, obviously rather hence rear a minority challenge, vis-a-vis, the validity, of, acquisition, of their lands. The effect of theirs rearing hence a minority challenge, is, qua their apt minority challenge being both unacceptable, besides un- entertainable, given the Hon''ble Apex Court in a verdict rendered in Tamil Nadu Housing Board versus Chandrasekaran (Dead) By LRs & Ors. , (2010) 2 SCC 786 , paragraph-17 whereof, stands, extracted hereinafter:- "17. We may also usefully refer to the judgments of this Court in Shyamnandan Prasad and Ors. , (2010) 2 SCC 786 , paragraph-17 whereof, stands, extracted hereinafter:- "17. We may also usefully refer to the judgments of this Court in Shyamnandan Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.,1999 4 SCC 255; Abhey Ram v. Union of India , (1997) 5 SCC 421 1 (paragraph 11); Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors , (1999) 7 SCC 44 (paragraphs 8, 9 and 11) and Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors , (2000) 7 SCC 296 in which it has been consistently held that quashing of acquisition proceedings at the instance of one or two landowners does not have the effect of nullifying the entire acquisition. Moreover, in the absence of challenge by L. Chandrasekaran to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 9/1998, his legal representatives do not have the locus to contend that order dated 21.8.1990 passed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos. 11353- 11355/1988 had the effect of nullifying the entire acquisition." making a clear pronouncement, qua, upon only, a, minority challenge, being, made to the bringing, to, acquisition, by the appropriate government, the lands of the landowners, thereupon, rather its warranting, its standing discountenanced. 13. The learned counsel appearing fort he petitioner has made a vigorous submission, before this Court, anvilled, upon the provisions of Section 24, of, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (a) Whereunder, in, non obstante sub-section (2) thereof, a mandate occurs qua, upon, an award being made five years, prior to the commencement of the aforesaid Act, and, with the apt physical possession of the land, being evidently not taken or compensation being not paid, (b) thereupon, the apt proceedings being construable, to,hence stand lapsed. Obviously, therefrom, he rears a conclusion, qua, with the apt award, standing evidently pronounced five years prior, to the coming into force, of , the Right to Fair Compensation, and, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (c) and, with the khasra girdwaries also making an pronouncement qua the landowners/petitioners, yet, holding possession of the apt lands, thereupon, he contends, that, the apt statutory parameters, borne in sub-section (2) of Section 24, of, the the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, rather begetting their apt satiations, (d) and, he hence contends that this Court hence make a pronouncement, vis-a-vis, the apt acquisition proceedings, rather lapsing. However, the aforesaid submission, does not hold, any vigour as the apt valid mutation(s) stood evidently attested, vis-a-vis, respondent No.5, subsequent to the apt award being rendered, besides the apt possession certificate, borne in Annexure R-4/1 makes clear unfoldings qua respondent No.5, rather holding possession, of, the acquired land. However, the aforesaid submission, does not hold, any vigour as the apt valid mutation(s) stood evidently attested, vis-a-vis, respondent No.5, subsequent to the apt award being rendered, besides the apt possession certificate, borne in Annexure R-4/1 makes clear unfoldings qua respondent No.5, rather holding possession, of, the acquired land. Both aforesaid obviously enjoy a presumption, of, truth, given theirs standing prepared by public servant(s), during discharge of public duties, more so when no cogent evidence in displacement thereof, exist on record, and, when khasra girdwaris stand prepared by officials, subordinate to the officers, who prepared the afore annexures. Even, if, compensation has not been received, by only four amongst several other landowners, all latters whereof, including co-petitioners No.5 ad 6, rather visibly recoursed the provisions, of Section 18, of the Act aforesaid, (e) therefrom, the apt inference, is, qua hence, upon, apt acquisition, the erstwhile title, upon, the land of the landowners concerned, obviously standing extinguished, rather title in the apt lands, being invested in respondent No.5, (f) and in making the aforesaid conclusion this Court, draws succor, from the judgment of this Court, rendered in a case titled as Urmila & Ors. Versus H.P. Housing Board and another , (2010) 1 LatestHLJ 68 (HP), the relevant paragraph whereof reads as under:- "It is an undisputed fact that consequent upon the passing of the award under Section 11 and possession taken of the land, by operation of Section 16 of the Act, the right, title and interest of the erstwhile owner stood extinguished and the Government became absolute owner of the property free from all encumbrances. Thereby no one has nor claimed any right, title and interest in respect of the acquired land." 14. Moreover, when the aggrieved landowners, have, from, the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, rather constituted therefrom, the, apt Reference Petitions, before the learned District Judge, Solan, whereat, they, on their adjudication, in their favour by the learned District Judge, Solan would receive apt benefits, of, enhanced compensation alongwith all statutory benefits, as envisaged in the Act, (i) thereupon, it is aptly concludable qua theirs also hence acquiescing, to, the validity of the processes, as, initiated by the appropriate government, for subjecting their lands, to acquisition, and, for the benefit of respondent No.5. Moreover, the landowners, who, omitted, to, file apt land reference petitions, would, at an appropriate stage, be entitled to recourse the provisions borne, in, Section 26(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 15. Fore the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.