1. All the petitions involving similar issues were heard together with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in the present batch of petitions have challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1894'), in respect of the lands in question sought to be acquired for the Ajmer Agra Ring Road, spread across 47 villages, admeasuring in aggregate about 1,578.958 hectares. The petitioners have also sought the declaration that the said land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013'). Though the respondents have filed the reply in each of the petitions, the rejoinder by the petitioners and other affidavits as well as the documents have been filed in SBCWP No. 9126/14 only, for being read in other writ petitions too. Hence SBCWP No. 9126/14 was treated as the lead case.

3. Faxtual Matrix :

3.1 The respondents, having prepared an integrated infrastructural project consisting of transport corridor, for fast moving traffic while connecting the city area in a circle alongwith a development corridor found necessary for the planned development of the Jaipur City and for the proper functioning of the transport corridor itself, the respondent No.1 had issued the notifications under Section 4 dated 15.7.05 for acquisition of the lands in question for the said integrated project in two phases. The respondent No. 3, Land Acquisition Officer having submitted the reports under Section 5A of the said Act, the respondent No.1 had issued the declarations under Section 6 dated 4.8.06 and 5.8.06, which were published in the official gazette on 18.8.06. The respondent No.3, LAO thereafter had passed village wise awards which were approved by the State Government in the year 2008 and 2009.

3.2 Most of the petitioners claiming to be the khatedars of their respective agricultural lands, had initially challenged the said land acquisition proceedings by filing the writ petitions being No. 997/06, 800/08, 8827/07, 9063/07, 9227/07, 1394/08, 1396/08 and 2205/08. The said petitions came to be disposed of vide order dated 4.5.11 and 15.2.12 directing the petitioners to make representations before the State Empowered Committee constituted by the Government, and to approach the court if any grievance survived after the decision of the committee.

3.3 It appears that the petitioners through their representatives had made the representations before the said Empowered Committee, however the same came to be rejected by the said Committee. The petitioner Virendra Singh alongwith other petitioners therefore had again filed writ petitions being Nos. SBCWP No. 8200/12, 8149/12, 8198/12 and 8199/12, in which the respondents had raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions to the effect that some of the petitions were filed in the name of dead persons, and in other petitions, names of many petitioners were repeated in the cause-title of the same petition or of other petitions. Pending the said four petitions, the petitioner Virendra Singh of the SBCWP No. 9126/14 alongwith other petitioners, filed 34 writ petitions which are listed at Serial Nos. 1 to 34 in the present order. At the relevant time, their being call of strike given by the Bar Association, the petitioner Virendra Singh had remained personally present alongwith other petitioners in the court and had prayed to do the needful. The court without being technical into the matter had permitted the said petitioners to withdraw their earlier set of four petitions, vide the order dated 22.9.14, and pursue their 34 p