ORDER

1. These appeals arise from the order of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench dated December 20, 1991 made in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 591 of 1991 and 646 of 1990. The facts lie in a short compass. The Government of Rajasthan exercising the power under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for short the Act published on June 9, 1960 to acquire 552 bighas and 8 biswas of land at Village Bhojpura Chak Sudershanpura, which is now part of Jaipur city, for planned development of that city. An award made on January 9, 1961 excluded 4 bighas, 1 biswa of land belonging to one Chotelal. Subsequently the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on January 21, 1974 after respondents Radhey Shyam, Naval Kishore and Shyam Sunder had purchased a part of the land from Chotelal by registered sale deed. In that award the Land Acquisition Officer deducted the value of Rs 2131.68 towards the value of 266.6 sq. yards of land allotted to each of the respondents in lieu of compensation awardable to them. The possession of the acquired land was taken on December 2, 1980 and it was handed over to the appellant - Jaipur Development Authority. In the reference made under Section 18, the civil court confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer but corrected certain double deduction of certain amounts made therein. Thereafter some persons filed writ petitions for grant of land in lieu of compensation and the respondents filed an execution to enforce the award passed by the civil court on the reference under Section 18. The appellant raised an objection as to the executability of the award for allotment of the sites made in lieu of compensation. The executing court partly upheld that objection but on revision by respondents the Division Bench held that it was not permissible for the appellants to raise the objection in execution of the award and accordingly allowed the revision. Thus these appeals by special leave.

2. The contention of the appellants is that the Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to allot part of the acquired land, in lieu of compensation and that, therefore, the award to that extent was a nullity, which objection could be raised at any stage including in execution of that award as upheld by the civil court.

3. Shri Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that under Section 31(4) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had power to enter into an arrangement with the landowners which power is without any limitation, though similar limitation was found in sub-section (3) of Section 31. Therefore, the award directing allotment of the land in lieu of compensation was perfectly legal. Having allowed the award to become final, it is no longer open to the appellant to raise the contention of lack of jurisdiction or nullity of the award of the Collector as affirmed by reference court, on the execution side. He further contended that it was the policy of the Government to allot the plots in lieu of compensation and it was allowed in respect of others. The respondents having foregone the right to receive compensation in respect of those lands, it is no longer open to the appellant to contend that the Land Acquisition Officer had no power to allot lands in lieu of compensation.

4. Having considered and given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel on either side, the question which emerges is, whether the Collector had power under any provision of the Act to award land in lieu of compensation from the acquired lands or any other lands. His power is traceable to Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. He is required to enquire into matters mentioned therein to determine the market value thereof and to make the award. Section 11 postulates that the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection which any person interested in the land may make to (I) the measurement of the land acquired or (II) respective interests of the persons claiming