M. C. JAIN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, in the above petitions, have prayed for declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated and/or continued in pursuance of the notification Annexs. 1 and 2 are wholly void and illegal and the proceedings have in fact lapsed and they have sought quashing of notifications issued under Sec. 4 (1), 6 (1) and 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 dated 10/08/1983 published in Rajasthan Raj-Patra dated 8-9-83 and notification issued under Sec. 17 (1) dated 10-12-84 published in Rajasthan Raj Patra on the same date. They have also sought quashing of the notice under Sec. 9 dated 13-10-88 (Annx. 3 ). They have further prayed that the respondents be directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed land in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications and they have further sought quashing of the General Awards dated 29-12-88 and specific award dated 30-12-88.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they are the Khatedars of the land described in para 2 of the writ petitions. In D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26 of 1989 Chainsingh and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, the total land acquired is 23 Bighas 10 Biswas, in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 292/89 total land acquired is 33 Bighas 17 Biswas and in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25/89 L. R. s of Shri Kishanlal and others v. State of Rajasthan, total land acquired is 33 Bighas. All these lands are situated in village Narpat Ki Khedi.

( 3 ) THE petitioners have challenged the notifications under Sec. 4 (1), 6 (1), 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short the Act) on the ground that a composite notification is void and illegal. The mandatory requirements of Sec. 4 (1) and Sec. 4 (5) of the Act have not been complied with and the provisions contained therein are mandatory and as such, the notification (Ann. 1) is bad and the entire land acquisition proceedings are void, illegal and without jurisdiction. The challenge is further on the ground that the invocation of the emergency provisions under Sec. 17 (4) of the State Act is mala fide, arbitrary and without application of mind. Further case of the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition proceedings have lapsed by operation of law under Sec. 11-A of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the first part of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 56 of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act 1987 validates the declaration and the award, if made prior to 3-1-87 and the second part of sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 56 is independent of the first part and cannot be read together with the first part and so, the land acquisition proceedings lapsed as no award was made up to 2-1-87. Despite the land acquisition proceedings having been lapsed, notice under Sec. 9 was issued on 13-10-88, which was served on the petitioners on or about 28-10-88. Objections regarding lapse of the proceedings were filed but the objections were rejected by order dated 16-12-88. The petitioners prayer for granting time to file the writ petition was rejected and the proceedings were fixed for filing the claim and production of the evidence on 19-12-88 and 27-12-88. The petitioners filed their claim and prayed for summoning of two witnesses with some record but the witnesses were not summoned and reasonable opportunity was not afforded and the land acquisition officer proceeded with the proceedings for passing the Award. After obtaining the necessary certified copy of the order dated 16-12-88 on 28-12-88, the writ petitions were filed on 2-1-89.

( 4 ) THE respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed reply. It was in the nature of reply to the show cause notice, although the writ petitions were admitted and no notice to show cause was issued. On the stay application, filed by the petitioner, an ad interim order was issued staying further land acquisition proceedings and giving further direction that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.

( 5 ) M/s Hindusthan Zinc Limited