1. - The common question of law and facts relating to the acquisition of the land are involved in all these writ petitions, therefore, they are being clubbed together and further are being decided by this common order.

2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the land situated in Mohalla Dhobhi Ghata, North East Block, Scheme No.10 in various Khasra numbers, as referred in the writ petition.

3. For the purpose of decision of this writ petitions, the leading facts of the case of Ram Lal are being referred.

4. The notification under Section 52 (1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (here-in-after to be referred as the Act of 1959) was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 04.03.1982, which includes the names of the petitioners. But no individual notice under Section 52 (2) of the Act of 1959 was served. It is also stated in the writ petition that the respondents have also failed to determine the compensation as per Section 52 (7) of the Act of 1959 as existed at the time of acquisition, which was completed before amendment made in Section 52 (7) of the Act of 1959 in the year 1987. In reply to the writ petition, it has been stated that the fact of issuance of the notice under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 has been individual admitted in Para 5 of the writ petition. It is further stated that the general notice issued under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 dated 04.03.1983 was published in the Official gazette on 07.03.1983 and on account of the issuance of the said notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 the land absolutely vest in the State Government without any encumbrance, as per provisions of Section 52 (4) of the Act of 1959. The determination of compensation was not made clear in reply to the writ petition by the respondents, therefore, this Court passed an order dated 26.08.2008, in compliance to which an additional affidavit was filed to place on record the award/determination order and in compliance to which the order dated 20.01.2003 was placed, according to which the compensation of the irrigated land was to be paid Rs.30,000/- per bigha, non-irrigated land Rs.25,000/- per bigha, compensation of Well Rs.15,000/- and the further compensation for trees and constructions as per rates of the Department. The respondents have further stated that as per the calculation based on the said determination order the amount has been deposited before the Collector/Civil Judge (S.D.), Alwar, where the reference proceedings are pending. The possession of the property in dispute was taken in the year 1985, but no development was taken place on account of the interim order passed in civil suit filed in the year 1987 and subsequently in these writ petitions.

5. The main challenge to the land acquisition proceedings, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner is that no individual notice was served upon the petitioners and further there was no order of award/determination of compensation was passed and on account of the said non-service of the individual notice under Section 52 (1) of the Act of 1959 and non determination/ passing of the award/non-determination of compensation the acquisition proceedings are violative of mandatory provisions under Section 52 (1) and 52 (7) of the Act of 1959, therefore, the same are void. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Urban Improvement Trust v. Balveer Singh and Others, reported in R.L.R. 1984 Page 398.

6. It was further submitted that they have not accepted the amount awarded by the respondents and applied for reference and the reference is pending. But the fact is that no actual determination has been made.

7. The Counsel for the respondents submits that the compliance of the provisions of Section 52 of the Act of 1959 as stood prior to 1987 has been made by serving individual notice as well as