The JDA Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to quash acquisition proceedings. The validity of an acquisition proceeding can only be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution.

1. - Both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. - On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition No. 729/85 has also been taken up for hearing.

2. The dispute in writ petition No. 574/91 is in respect of acquisition of land of the petitioner society. In this case the petitioner is a member of Sahakari Mitra Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., which has purchased the land by registered sale-deed dated 17.10.70. The land is measuring 4 Biglias 14 Biswas situated in village Chak Dhula on Jhalana Road, Jaipur having khasra No. 69/6. An application was moved to the Secretary, UIT on 26.5.1978 for permission of sub-division. The said application was rejected on 18.8.83 against which an appeal was preferred to the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal which was decided on 31.3.1984. The writ petition No. 729/85 is against the order of the Jaipur Development Authority Tribunal dated 31.3.1984 which has been filed by the JDA on the ground that the learned Judge, JDA Tribunal was not justified in quashing the acquisition proceedings in appeal filed by the society under section 83 of the JDA Act.

3. In writ petition No. 729/85 the facts which have been stated are that the application was submitted in accordance with the Conversion Rules, 1971 for converting the agricultural land into abadi/residential and the Officer, Land Conversion allowed the application of the society on 3.1.1975. Thereafter the acquisition proceedings were initiated by, issuing notification under section 52 of the UIT Act and the notification under sub-sec. (1) and (2) of Section 52 were published in the official gazette on 22.5.1975 and 30.6.76. The Tribunal proceeded, with presumption that no notice was issued to the society and from the letter of the land Acquisition Officer dated 1.1.1981 the khatedar tenant has taken the amount of the award. The possession of the land was taken on 29.1.1977 as mentioned in the order of the Tribunal. Before the learned Judge of the Tribunal the preliminary. objection was raised that the sub-division could not be approved because the land in question has been acquired by the Government and, therefore, the appeal against the order dated 18.8.$5 be not allowed. Various questions which were raised were stated against the acquisition proceedings and it was submitted that under section 83(8) the appeal is not maintainable. The Tribunal found that the application has been submitted for sub-division and the question of acquisition of land has cropped up incidentally. The appeal is essentially against the order of rejecting the application for sub-division of the land and the appeal was held competent.

4. It wa3, found that the society is interested person under section 52(2)' and -no notice was served upon it. Reliance was placed on the decision given by this court in the case of UIT v. Balbir Singh, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 183/82 decided on 22.8.83 . On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on the decision of Dr. Mrs. Grace Harris v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 RLW 620 . The Tribunal found that in the present case the land was not purchased in contravention of the provisions of law and, therefore, the decision of Dr. Mrs. Grace Harris is not applicable., In the case of Balbir Singn it ' was decided that the provisions of Section 52(2) are mandatory and the notice was required to be served which has not been served and that after publishing notice under section 52(1) of the Act the land vest absolutely free from all encumbrances from the date of publication of notification under section 52(4) of the Act, in the State Government. Since the notice were not served on the society, therefore, it was held that subsequent proceeding of acquisition are vitiated and JDA cannot refuse permission of sub-division on the ground of acquisition.

5. I have considered over the matter. So far as observations of the learned Judge, JDA Tribunal to this extent is concerned, that an appeal ag