IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4112 of 2005. Manohar Lal and Others VERSUS The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 14/08/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. Mr. Shanker Lal Soni, Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Alok Garg, Counsel for the Respondents **** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Court on 07.07.2008 passed the following the order :- “By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the award dated 05.05.1994 as null and void and further quashing of the same with the further direction to declare the land in question free from acquisition; there are other additional/ancillary prayers also. But it appears that the petitioner has neither challenged the notification under Section 4 and nor under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that he was the co-sharer of the land held by grandfather, Dhannalal, by his birth. Kanhaiya Lal, father of petitioner nos.1 to 5 and Birda Ram, father of petitioner No.6, have earlier filed the writ petition being SB CWP No.3190/2004 which was dismissed; but still his grievance is that he is entitled for the aforesaid reliefs. Mr. Vyas, Additional Advocate General objects that neither the notification under Section 4 and nor under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are challenged, therefore, his grievance with regard to the award and the land being free from acquisition cannot be entertained. Both the parties want time to examine and cite law on the aforesaid issue. Put up on 09.07.2008 as jointly prayed.” Instead of citing the law on the issue raised in the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment challenging the notifications without referring the specific dates of issuance of the notifications, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case when the same notifications for the land in question in the case were challenged by the father of the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and Birdha Ram in S.B. C.W.P. No.3190/2004, and the same has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another, reported in (2002) 7 S.C.C. Page 559 (Para-7), wherein the proposed amendment was not altering basic structure of the case, but here in the instant case, the basic issues of validity of the notification sought to be challenged by way of amendment have already been decided in the earlier writ petition filed by his father for the land in question, therefore, the amendment is necessary and the said judgment is not applicable in this case. The learned counsel for the respondents sought time to file reply to the said application on 22.08.2008 and then last opportunity was given to file reply on 07.08.2008, but no reply has been filed so far and the respondents are now opposing the amendment application orally and for the purpose of opposing the writ petition the State has adopted the reply of the Rajasthan Housing Board. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the challenge to the notifications is consequential and nothing new is being added, except quashing of notifications on the certain grounds. He also submits that the amendment application can be allowed at any stage of the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the validity of the said notifications has already been upheld and the petitioners have no independent rights apart from the right of their father. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. The amendment application is also vague as neither the date of notification is mentioned nor the notifications have been produced. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the challenge to the award without challenging the notification of the years 1990 and 1991 by filing the writ petition in the year 2005, after considerable delay of ten years and then moving the amendment application after further delay of three years is not justified at all, particularly when the issue was pointed out by the Court in the order dated 07.07.2008. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in my view the petitioners have no independent right to challenge the notifications. The validity of the notifications has already been upheld in S.B. CWP No.3190/2005 vide order dated 12.02.2007. The aforesaid order dated 12.02.2007 of this Court in SB CWP No.3190/2005 is as under :- “Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act) was issued on 20.03.1990. The land in question was to be acquired for developing a housing scheme for the Housing Board. After issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the award was passed don 08.05.1994. As has come on record, even the possession has been taken on 07.01.2000, whereas, the present writ petition has been filed on 04.05.2004 challenging the entire acquisition proceedings only on the ground that since the award had not been passed within the specific period, the entire acquisition proceedings would lapse. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. The respondents, in their reply, have given details of the dates on which the respective notifications had been published not only in the Gazette but also in the news papers and duly notified at the public places. There is nothing to disbelieve the facts given on behalf of the respondents. Since the entire acquisition proceedings were over long back and is reason, whatsoever, has been given by the petitioner in challenging the same after more than a decade, in the facts and circumstances, I find no ground for any interference of this Court under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits”. The aforesaid judgment has attained the finality and I have already hold that the petitioners have no independent right apart from the right of their father to challenge the acquisition proceedings, therefore, the writ petition and the amendment application have no force. Accordingly, this writ petition as well as amendment application are dismissed. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/