JUDGMENT 1. The present intra-court appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules lays challenge to the judgment and order dated 4.10.2018, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court whereby petitioners writ petition has been rejected. 2. Succinctly stated the facts relevant for the present purposes are that the appellants, residents of Village Rani Khurd, Tehsil Rani, District Pali filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the declaration dated 31.07.2018 issued under Section 20E of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as the Act of 1989 ) and order dated 10.05.2018, passed by the competent authority cum Sub-Divisional Officer Desuri, rejecting petitioners objections, which were filed pursuant to notification dated 15.2.2018 issued under Section 20D of the Act of 1989. 3. The basic contentions raised by the petitioners had been that the notification dated 15.02.2018 was not given wide publicity, it was neither affixed on concerned land/conspicuous place of the Panchayat etc., nor was it announced by beating of drums. It was also contended that in absence of such publication, the petitioners, some of whom were illiterate and some were outstation, could not submit their objections within the prescribed period of thirty days to oppose the proposed acquisition. 4. The petitioners had also questioned the order dated 10.05.2018, passed by the competent authority vide which petitioners objections were rejected on the ground of delay. 5. Learned Single Judge repelled all the contentions raised by the petitioners, while dismissing their writ petition, vide his order dated 4.10.2018. 6. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners after reiterating all the arguments advanced by him before learned Single Judge, contended that provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 20D of the Act of 1989 are not mandatory. He argued that since no consequence has been provided, in case an interested person fails to file objection within 30 days, the objections cannot be rejected, merely because they have not been filed within 30 days of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 20A of the Act of 1989. 7. Learned counsel added that the petitioners were entitled to have a reasonable opportunity to raise their objections in relation to the proposed acquisition and that by the cursory rejection of their objection by the respondent No.2, their rights to hold property and earn livelihood have been adversely affected, rather infracted. 8. 7. Learned counsel added that the petitioners were entitled to have a reasonable opportunity to raise their objections in relation to the proposed acquisition and that by the cursory rejection of their objection by the respondent No.2, their rights to hold property and earn livelihood have been adversely affected, rather infracted. 8. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that not only the order dated 10.05.2018, passed by the competent authority, but the final declaration dated 30.07.2018, issued under Section 20E of the Act of 1989 vesting the land in Railways also deserves to be quashed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 10. It is to be noticed that Chapter-IV A has been inserted in the Act of 1989 by the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008, whereby various provisions viz. Section 20A to 20P were enacted with a view to enable acquisition for various projects to be undertaken by the Railways. A comprehensive reading of these provisions suggests that they are not identical to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as claimed by the petitioner. Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, mandates publication of the notification not only in the official Gazette and 2 daily newspapers, but also at conspicuous places of the locality; whereas corresponding provisions encapsulated in Section 20A of the Act enjoins upon the Central Government to cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers (one of which should be in vern acular language), without requiring other formalities to be observed as are necessary in case of the acquisition under the Act of 1894. 11. Adverting to the consideration of objections, a combined reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20D of the Act of 1989 reveals that a person interested in land may lodge his objections within a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 20A(1) of the Act. Such objection are required to be filed in writing, setting out the grounds explicitly. 12. On the bedrock of the statutory provisions above referred, if arguments of Mr. Shah are tested, they turn out to be worthy of no substance. The Act of 1989 neither contemplates propagation of the intention to acquire land by way of beating of drum etc. Such objection are required to be filed in writing, setting out the grounds explicitly. 12. On the bedrock of the statutory provisions above referred, if arguments of Mr. Shah are tested, they turn out to be worthy of no substance. The Act of 1989 neither contemplates propagation of the intention to acquire land by way of beating of drum etc. nor does it postulate affixation of the notification at the subject land or at the conspicuous or convenient places, which is mandatory under the Act of 1894. Hence, the purported failure of not affixing the notification on the subject land cannot entail invalidation or annulment of the acquisition proceedings. 13. The second limb of argument of Mr. Shah that since the Act does not provide the consequence of failure to file the objections within 30 days, the period of 30 days cannot be taken to be mandatory, is equally fallacious. True it is, that the consequence of not sticking to the dead line of 30 days has not been provided, but the same by itself does not clothe the interested persons with a right to file objections whenever thought appropriate or belatedly. A perusal of the relevant provisions contained in Section 20D of the Act of 1989 reveals that it does not provide any leeway to the interested person filing the objections, after passing of the prescribed period of 30 days or empower the competent authority to entertain the belated objections. 14. The notification under Section 20A of the Act, showing intention of the Railways to acquire the contentious land, was published on 15.2.2018 and the publication in two local newspapers was made on 21.03.2018. As such the objections, if any, were required to be filed on or before 20.04.2018 i.e. within 30 days of the publication of the notification in Newspaper. The petitioners objections filed on 10.05.2018 were obviously filed after expiry of prescribed period of limitation for doing the same and were rightly rejected by the competent authority cum SubDivisional Officer. 15. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the petitioners writ petition has held that the petitioners objections were after 85 days from the date of publication of the initial notification. As a word of caution, we may observe that the period of 30 days should not be reckoned from the date of the notification, but from the date of publication of the notification in two local newspapers. As a word of caution, we may observe that the period of 30 days should not be reckoned from the date of the notification, but from the date of publication of the notification in two local newspapers. As such the petitioners objections were filed after about 20 days of the last date and hence finding of learned Single Judge to the extent that the objections were filed after 85 days from the relevant date, is apparently erroneous. Be that as it may, the objection were nevertheless filed after the expiry of period provided in this regard and hence impugned order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the competent authority does not call for any interference. 16. Notwithstanding the above, we have examined the objections filed on 10.05.2018. We hardly find any substance therein, which would have otherwise affected the decision of the respondent No.2 or the legality or proprietary of his order or the acquisition proceedings. The objections raised by the appellants seem to have been filed for the sake of it, without raising any substantial point touching upon the justification or legality of the proceedings. 17. It is pertinent that the declaration under Section 20E of the Act of 1989 has been made on 30.07.2018 and the land stands vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The appellants have failed to show any fatal defect in the procedure provided under the Act of 1989 or error in the judgment of learned Single Judge warranting interference. 18. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.