IMPORTANT POINT
Compulsory acquisition of land under Section 52 of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 cannot be challenged on the grounds that the award has not been passed within the stipulated period or that there was no scheme for improvement of the urban area.

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-In these appeals the challenge is to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court who had upheld the acquisition of land of the appellants which had been acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ).

2. The proceedings for acquisition of land of the appellants commenced with the State of Rajasthan issuing notification dated 10th October, 1979, under Section 52(2) of the said Act proposing to acquire the land, described in the said notification, which was situated in various villages in and around the city of Jaipur. The notification stated that it was necessary to acquire the land mentioned therein for improvement of land of Sector 1A of Jaipur City for the purposes of multipurpose schemes, i.e., for the construction of buildings residential, commercial and industrial units. By this notification information was given to all the concerned owners and persons interested in the land which was sought to be acquired to file any objections, which they had, against the proposed acquisition. In respect of the land of the appellants notification under Section 52(1) of the said Act was issued on 20th April, 1984. It was stated therein that the land mentioned in the said notification was needed under the said Act for the improvement of urban areas and this notification was issued after considering those objections which had been filed by the interested persons. It was also notified that on the date of publication of the said notification in the Rajasthan Rajpatra "the said land shall be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances". Though, this notification was dated 7th March, 1984, the same was, however, published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on 20th April, 1984.

3. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was extended to the State of Rajasthan on 24th September, 1984. Some of the persons whose lands were acquired filed suits challenging the acquisition proceedings under Section 52 of the said Act. According to the appellants the said suits were dismissed on 2nd September, 1986. Awards were passed on different dates. In the present appeals the awards were passed on 30th September, 1988, 30th November, 1988 and 28th June, 1989.

4. A number of writ petitions were then filed in the Rajasthan High Court. Vide a common judgment dated 21st October, 1992, a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed 24 writ petitions and upheld the acquisition of the land which had been made. Appeals were filed against the said judgment and a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the same on 17th December, 1992. Civil Appeal Nos. 624-25 and 626-28 of 1993 challenge the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.

5. Another set of appeals against the judgment of the Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court were dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 12th May, 1994, by following its earlier decision of 17th December, 1992. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15971 of 1995 is filed against this judgment.

6. The main contention which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that no award had been made within two years of the notification issued under Section 52 of the said Act. It was contended that with the Land Acquisition Act 1894 having been extended, the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 ceased to have any operation and thereafter acquisition proceedings were required to be taken under the relevant provisions of the Central Act. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 requires that the awards should be made within two years of the publication of Section 6 notification and, it was submitted, that in the instant cases the awards were made beyond the said period of two years and without complying with the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

7. It was also submitted by Mr. A.K. Sen, lerarned senior counsel for the appellants, that another Division Bench of the Ra