1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT ::: 1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 51/2007 GANESH RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 2 D.B. CIVIL LEAVE TO APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 4/2007 SMT.VEENITA BHATNAGAR & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 3 D.B. CIVIL LEAVE TO APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 5/2007 SMT.KUSUM KASHYAP & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 4 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 42/2007 MANOJ KUMAR GARG & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 5 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 43/2007 BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE & ORS. 6 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 52/2007 VASUDEV GAUR Vs. STATE & ORS. 7 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 125/2007 BABU LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 8 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 126/2007 RAM PRAKASH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 9 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 127/2007 RAMSUKH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 10 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 183/2007 BHIK SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS. 11 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 969/2007 RAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 12 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 1059/2007 KUNA RAM ALIAS KANA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 13 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 69/2008 FOJU SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 14 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 70/2008 DEVI SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 15 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 124/2008 CHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE & ORS. 2 16 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 125/2008 GIRDHARI LAL Vs. STATE & ORS. 17 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 126/2008 SURESH LAHOTI Vs. STATE & ORS. 18 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 127/2008 KAILASH MOONDRA Vs. STATE & ORS. 19 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 128/2008 KANMAL SHAH & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 20 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 129/2008 SMT.NEELAM JAIN Vs. STATE & ORS. 21 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 130/2008 TEJ PAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 22 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 131/2008 JAGDISH Vs. STATE & ORS. 23 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 132/2008 SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE & ORS. 24 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 133/2008 URMILA PATEL (SMT.) Vs. STATE & ORS. 25 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 134/2008 LRS OF MAGNI RAM JI Vs. STATE & ORS. 26 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 138/2008 FOJU SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 27 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 142/2008 SMT.SHYAMA MUTHA Vs. STATE & ORS. 28 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 143/2008 NARAYAN RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 29 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 174/2008 PREMA RAM ALIAS PEMA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 30 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 183/2008 RATAN SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 31 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 221/2008 SUJA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 32 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 242/2008 SMT.BABLA KANWAR & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 33 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 243/2008 SMT.BHANWARI DEVI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 34 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 253/2008 GHEWAR RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 3 35 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 286/2008 BINJA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 36 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 287/2008 BHAGA RAM & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 37 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 288/2008 BHIYA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 38 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 289/2008 MOHAN LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 39 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 290/2008 MANGI LAL Vs. STATE & ORS. 40 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 291/2008 MANGI LAL Vs. STATE & ORS. 41 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 292/2008 BHANWAR LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 42 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 293/2008 THANA RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 43 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 294/2008 SMT.RAMJOT BAI SONI Vs. STATE & ORS. 44 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 295/2008 KESRI MAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 45 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 296/2008 SMT. SANTOSH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE & ORS. 46 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 297/2008 RAJENDRA MUTHA Vs. STATE & ORS. 47 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 298/2008 RAM CHANDRA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 48 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 299/2008 CHINJI ALIAS SHIV NARAYAN Vs. STATE & ORS. 49 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 300/2008 CHHANWAR LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 50 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 355/2008 GHANSHYAM MUTHA Vs. STATE & ORS. 51 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 395/2008 DASHRATH KUMAR & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 52 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 415/2008 RAJU & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 53 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 416/2008 GANESH RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 4 54 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 417/2008 SMT.RADHA MOONDRA Vs. STATE & ORS. 55 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 418/2008 VISHNU TAK Vs. STATE & ORS. 56 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 419/2008 GOVIND MUTHA Vs. STATE & ORS. 57 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 462/2008 CHANDA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 58 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 479/2008 SMT CHAMPA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 59 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 480/2008 RATAN SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 60 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 481/2008 LADU SINGH & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 61 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 482/2008 BHANWAR LAL & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 62 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 485/2008 RAJENDRA SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 63 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 496/2008 DALPAT RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 64 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 498/2008 SHYAM SUNDER TAK Vs. STATE & ORS. 65 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 572/2008 MISHRI LAL PATEL Vs. STATE & ORS. 66 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 573/2008 NEMI CHAND & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 67 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 574/2008 JAGDISH Vs. STATE & ORS. 68 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 575/2008 MANGI LAL Vs. STATE & ORS. 69 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 576/2008 BHANWAROON KHAN Vs. STATE & ORS. 70 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 577/2008 SIDHARTH DOSHI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 71 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 578/2008 GAPER RAM PATEL Vs. STATE & ORS. 72 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 579/2008 MAHENDRA SINGH SODHA Vs. STATE & ORS. 5 73 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 580/2008 NAND KISHORE MOONDRA Vs. STATE & ORS. 74 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 581/2008 MANGI LAL MOONDRA Vs. STATE & ORS. 75 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 582/2008 RATAN SINGH SHISHODIA Vs. STATE & ORS. 76 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 583/2008 SMT.SITA TIWARI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 77 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 584/2008 MANUJ GOYAL Vs. STATE & ORS. 78 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 585/2008 SMT.KISTOORI DEVI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 79 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 586/2008 PUKH RAJ Vs. STATE & ORS. 80 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 587/2008 OM PRAKASH PATEL Vs. STATE & ORS. 81 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 589/2008 HITESH SURANA Vs. STATE & ORS. 82 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 590/2008 SMT.SUDHESH CHOWHAN Vs. STATE & ORS. 83 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 591/2008 SMT.SHANTI DEVI & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 84 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 593/2008 BANSHI LAL JAT Vs. STATE & ORS. 85 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 594/2008 MOOL CHAND KAWAD & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 86 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 596/2008 NENU RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 87 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 599/2008 MESSERS SHYAM INVESTMENT Vs. STATE & ORS. 88 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 600/2008 MALA RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 89 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 601/2008 NARAYAN RAM & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 90 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 605/2008 SURENDRA MUTHA Vs. STATE & ORS. 91 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 608/2008 LRS OF SANWAL RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 6 92 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 678/2008 PRAKASH BHATI & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS. 93 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 736/2008 GOMARAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 94 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 769/2008 PADAM CHAND BAFNA Vs. STATE & ORS. 95 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 913/2008 MESSERS SHYAM INVESTMENT Vs. STATE & ORS. 96 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 1099/2008 SHIVJI RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. 97 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 1142/2008 HADMAN RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS. 98 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 225/2009 SMT.RAJUL MEHTA Vs. STATE & ORS. 99 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 930/2006 BHIKAM CHAND SURANA CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE & ORS. 100 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 773/2008 SMT. SINGARI DEVI & ORS Vs. STATE & ORS. 101 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 65/2009 FATEH RAM Vs. STATE & ORS. DATE OF ORDER : 10.12.2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI PRAKASH TATIA Sarva Shri MC Bhoot, MR Singhvi, MS Singhvi, HL Kela, Narpat Singh, Manish Shishodia, Himanshu Maheshwari, DK Sharma, Girish Joshi, Akhilesh Rajpurohit, AD Charan, for the respective appellants. Sarva Shri Mr.RL Jangid AAG, JP Joshi, DS Rajvi, Siddarth Joshi, JP Bhardwaj, for the respondents. ... BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) : REPORTABLE Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7 These intra court appeals have been preferred assailing the validity of the acquisition made for the purpose of Vivek Vihar Scheme by the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (referred to herein after as 'UIT, Jodhpur') now taken over by Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur (referred to herein after as 'JDA, Jodhpur'). The State Government through its Urban Development Department issued a notification on 26.7.2000 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (referred to herein after as 'the Act') and authorised the Land Acquisition Officer of UIT, Jodhpur to take necessary steps under Section 4(2) of the Act. This notification was followed by declaration issued by the State Government, Department of Urban Development. The provisions of Section 17(4) was invoked as mentioned in declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer of UIT, Jodhpur was authorised to take steps under Section 17(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer of UIT, Jodhpur issued notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act on 17.4.2001. Pursuant thereto, a public notice (R/7 in SAW No.51/07) was issued to take possession on 11.2.2003. Notice was affixed and beat of drum was also made. Thereafter, possession had been taken on 26.2.2003 vide receipt/panchnama (R/1) and it was handed over to UIT, Jodhpur on 8.8.2003 (R/6). Award was passed on 26.10.2004 determining the compensation recording a finding that possession had been taken on 26.2.2003. It appears that only one of the writ applications i.e. CWP No.1798/2001 had been filed before passing of the award. Other writ applications have been preferred after passing of the award. 8 In CWP No.1798/2001, prayer has been made to quash the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 26.7.2000 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 12.3.2001. Prayer has also been made not to disturb the possession of the petitioners over Survey No.216 of Village Sangaria, Tehsil & District Jodhpur in area 3 bighas & 4 biswas. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners have purchased the land from Bhanwar Lal etc. by different registered sale deeds dated 17.1.1995. Their names have been mutated in the revenue record. In April, 2001, they came to know that the proceedings for acquisition of the land have been undertaken by the UIT. Substance of the notification issued under Section 4 dated 26.7.2000 has not been given publicity at convenient places as required. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has not been conducted as Section 17(4) of the Act has been invoked. The invocation of Section 17(4) was not warranted. Hence, the writ petition has been preferred and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2006. In other writ applications, which have been preferred after passing of the award, it has been submitted that pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 26.7.2000, requisite steps have not been taken by the Collector who was competent to do so. Though the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the State Government, however, steps have not been taken by the Collector under Section 9 of the Act. The action taken under Section 9 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer of the UIT, Jodhpur could not be said to be authorised. Possession was not taken on 26.2.2003. Mode of taking possession prescribed under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC has 9 not been followed with respect to the structures which were existing over the land. It is also submitted that the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been illegally dispensed with by invoking provision of Section 17(4) of the Act. The stand of the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 in the return filed in CWP No.1798/2001 is that the notice under Section 9(1) was issued to the individual khatedars also. Various persons including the petitioners filed their claim and award was ultimately passed on 26.10.2004. Possession had been taken on 26.2.2003. Provision of Section 11 of the Act is not attracted as Section 17(4) of the Act had been invoked. In the notification which was issued under Section 4 of the Act by the State Government, the Land Acquisition Officer of the UIT, Jodhpur was authorised to take further steps and in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer of the UIT, Jodhpur was authorised to take steps under Section 17(1) of the Act that is to take possession and to do other acts under Section 9 of the Act. After passing of the award, the land has vested in the State. In the year 1995, the UIT, Jodhpur had put a proposal for acquiring 3095 bighas of private land situated at Villages Sangaria and Kudi Bhagtasani of Tehsil & District Jodhpur. The Urban Development & Housing Department of Government of Rajasthan granted approval for acquisition. Consequently, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.7.2000. It was published in 2 daily newspapers circulating in the area on 28.9.2000 and 29.9.2000 in Jalte Deep and Dainik Bhaskar respectively. After publication of the notification in the aforesaid manner, substance of the notification was affixed at the convenient places in the Villages Sangaria and Kudi Bhagtasani 10 on 25.10.2000 as apparent from the report (R/5). While steps were under way for acquisition, the Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.6073/1993 (Mahendra Lodha vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) issued directions on 20.12.2000 and 13.4.2001 directing the UIT, Jodhpur to provide facility of Transport Nagar so that the movement of heavy vehicles in the City of Jodhpur can be avoided. The Division Bench of this Court was apprised by the UIT, Jodhpur that Transport Automobile Nagar at Pali Road in Vivek Vihar has been proposed and the proceedings for acquisition have been initiated. In view of the said proposal, the Division Bench directed the acquisition to be completed in public interest on time bound basis as apparent from the order (R/6) dated 13.4.2001. The notice under Section 9(1) was published in the newspapers Dainik Bhaskar and Rajasthan Patrika on 17.4.2001 and 18.4.2001 respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer was competent to take possession on expiry of period of 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. Possession had been taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer on 26.2.2003 in the presence of the patwaries. Fard Mauka was prepared and possession was handed over to UIT, Jodhpur on 8.8.2003 and mutation of UIT, Jodhpur was made. Draft award was passed on 11.3.2003 which was sent to the State Government for approval and ultimately, the award was approved by the State Government on 12.10.2004. Final award was passed on 26.10.2004. After passing of the award, the State Government has also granted approval for Vivek Vihar Scheme under Section 32 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. Master Plan was approved under Section 7 of the Act of 1959 on 18.8.2003. Since 11 the petitioners have participated in acquisition and writ petitions have been filed belatedly, the same are liable to be dismissed. The Single Bench while dismissing the CWP No.1798/2001 has opined that due publicity was given to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the locality. Due local publicity was also given to the declaration issued under Section 6 read with Section 17(4) of the Act. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rightly dispensed with. Opinion has been formed by the State to invoke the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act in accordance with law and could not be said to be baseless. Award has been passed, hence, land stands vested in UIT, Jodhpur. Other writ petitions, which were preferred after passing of the award on 26.10.2004, have been dismissed on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer of the UIT, Jodhpur was duly authorised to perform the functions of the Collector. In some of the orders, reliance has been placed on a notification dated 22.5.1987 issued by the State of Rajasthan, Revenue Department by which the State Government has appointed all the Sub Divisional Officers cum Land Acquisition Officers to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act within their respective jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Single Bench of dismissal of the writ applications, these intra court appeals have been preferred. Shri M.C. Bhoot and Shri M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, have submitted that due 12 publicity in the locality was not given to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, the acquisition is rendered illegal and void. The Land Acquisition Officer of the UIT, Jodhpur has made publicity in the local area. He was not having the power of the Collector to do so. Consequently, even if any local publicity has been made by him, is unauthorised. The Land Acquisition Officer of UIT, Jodhpur was not having the powers of the Collector to initiate the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act for taking the possession. Shri M.C. Bhoot has submitted that the possession in fact was not taken on 26.2.2003 whereas Shri M.S. Singhvi appearing in CWP No.1798/2001 has submitted that inspite of there being interim stay granted by this Court on taking of possession, in violation of the order passed by this Court, possession had been illegally taken on 26.2.2003. However, the counsel have joined in submission that the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been illegally dispensed with by invoking provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act, the scheme was pending with effect from 1995. There was gap of more than 7 months in issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and thereafter the possession has been taken, as per the stand of the respondents after about 1 year 11 months. No money was available with the UIT, Jodhpur at the time possession was taken for making payment of compensation which is necessary as per Section 17(3A) of the Act. The letter written to the State Government by the UIT, Jodhpur indicated that some other land was also appropriate for Transport Nagar, as such it was necessary to hold the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Shri J.P. Joshi and Shri D.S. Rajvi, learned counsel 13 appearing on behalf of UIT, Jodhpur and Shri R.L. Jangid, AAG, appearing on behalf of the State have supported the acquisition. They have submitted that all the writ applications are liable to be dismissed on threshold as award has been passed. Except one writ application i.e. CWP No.1798/2001 which was filed in 2001, all the writ applications have been filed after 26.10.2004 on which date final award was passed. The petitioners have participated in the proceedings for obtaining the compensation. The land stands absolutely vested in UIT, Jodhpur (JDA, Jodhpur). Due to delay, this Court need not go in the merits of the various submissions. Even the petitioners in CWP No.1798/2001 have acquiesced in passing of the award. The writ petition filed by them to assail the notification and local publicity given to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was clearly belated. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rightly dispensed with considering the time bound frame given by this Court to make acquisition for Transport Nagar on or before 31.3.2001 as apparent from the order dated 20.12.2000 passed in CWP No.6073/1993. The Land Acquisition Officer had been specifically authorised in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act to take steps under Section 4(2) of the Act and to do all other ancillary acts and in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had been specifically authorised to do all the acts of the Collector under Section 17(1) which provision has reference to Section 9 of the Act also. Due local publicity was given to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Possession had been taken over on 26.2.2003. Drawing of panchnama is the mode of taking possession. Provision of Section 9 of the Act has been duly 14 complied with. 15 days notice was given before taking the possession. No illegality has been committed. The intra court appeals are merit-less, hence, deserve dismissal. Firstly in our considered opinion, the writ applications, which have been filed after passing of the final award on 26.10.2004, suffer with laches. As apparent from the facts that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26.7.2000, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12.3.2001, notice under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued on 17.4.2001, possession is said to be taken on 26.2.2003 and the petitioners have participated in the proceedings of determination of compensation, therefore, the writ applications filed after passing of the award cannot be said to be maintainable on the ground of delay alone. Besides after passing of the award, the land stands absolutely vested in the UIT, Jodhpur and the writ petitions filed thereafter are liable to be dismissed on this ground. Coming to the submission that whether the local publicity was given to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act? It is apparent from the bottom note mentioned in the notification dated 26.7.2000 published in the gazette on 29.7.2000 that one copy of the notification was pasted at Village Sangaria and another at Village Kuri Bhagtasani. The said note is dated 25.10.2000 and is signed by Shri D.S. Kaviraj and Shri Mahesh Ujjwal, Advocates. There is absolutely nothing to doubt the correctness of the aforesaid endorsement. Merely by the fact that it has been signed by two advocates who were residing at a 15 distance of some what 10-15 kms., we cannot doubt their presence and the factum of affixation in the aforesaid villages. Thus, we find no merit in the submission that due publicity of the said notification in the locality was not given. It is not in dispute that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was duly published in the Gazette and 2 daily newspapers in circulation in the area. Coming to the question whether the enquiry under Section 5A of the