1. - The petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 08.01.1991, published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act', for short) and the Declaration dated 17.04.1993, published under Section 6 of the Act.

2. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioners are son of Shri Bithal Das Ajmera. On 27th July, 1953, Shri Bithal Das Ajmera bought a piece of land falling in khasra No.16 Village Vijay Mahal, near Jal Mahal area in Jaipur. The said land was initially mutated in his name. Unfortunately, in 1972 both Bithal Das Ajmera and his wife expired. Since the petitioners were their surviving legal heirs, both the petitioners jointly inherited khatedari rights in the said land. The Tehsildar, Jaipur carried out the necessary mutation proceedings. He mutated their names in the revenue records of 15.04.1974. In order to develope the area around Jal Mahal and to install a ropeway from Nahargarh Peak to the Jal Mahal area, the Government published a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 08.01.1991. It was published in the State Gazette on 17.10.1991. The State Government also issued and served a notice dated 27.04.1992 in the name of Bithal Das Ajmera. Through the notice, the Land Acquisition Officer, JDA, Jaipur invited objections from Shri Bithaldas in respect of the land measuring 1 bigha comprised in Khasra No.16. Ultimately, the notice was served upon the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their initial objections on 23.05.1992 and supplementary objections on 21.09.1992. Subsequently, on 17.04.1993, the State Government published a declaration under Section 6 of the Act and published it in the extra-ordinary Gazette of the State of Rajasthan on 19.04.1993. According to the petitioners, the notification and the declaration are absolutely vague. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Before entering into the contentions raised by the petitioners, it is imperative to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Mr. S.N. Kumawat, the learned AAG for the State. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have already filed their reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, this writ petition is no longer maintainable. For, through this writ petition, the petitioners have merely challenged the Notification and the Declaration mentioned above.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Anant Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that merely by entering into a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioners are not precluded from challenging the validity of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. For, according to the learned counsel, the reference is made on extremely limited grounds namely, objections with regard to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. According to Section 18 of the Act, a reference does not permit the Court to go into the validity or invalidity of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act or of the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, notwithstanding the pendency of the reference, the writ petition is still maintainable.

5. Heard the learned counsels on the preliminary objection.Section 18 of the Act is as under:-

18. Reference to Court:-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken :

Provided that every such application shall be made,-

(a) If the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when