BERI, C.J.—These 17 appeals are directed against an order of the learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writs petitions wherein the validity of the Land Acquisitions Act and the acquisitions made thereunder were challenged.

2. Within the Municipal limits of Jaipur there are two villages named Bhojpura and Chak Sudershanpur. Lands belonging to the appellants were notified for acquisition by the State of Rajasthan for the planned development of the city of Jaipur at the behest of the Urban Improvement Board (abbreviated as U.IB.) Jaipur. On 29-7-1959 the Chairman of the U.I.B. visited the site accompanied by the Land Acquisition Officer Mr. K.G. Gupta and passed verbal orders that steps be taken for its acquisition. On December 8, 1959 the Secretary, Local Self Government, was requested to issue a notification under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquision Act, 1953 (hereinafter called "the Acquisition Act". A notice under sec. 4 of the Acquisition Act was issued on May 13, 1953, which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on June 9, 1960. No objection was made under sec. 5A disputing the existence of the public purpose as notified in sec. 4 of the Acquisition Act. Accordingly a notification under sec. 6 of the Acquisition Act was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on May 11, 1961. Soon thereafter on July 18, 1961 notices under sec. 9 of the Acquisition Act were issued to the persons interested. 65 claims were presented before the Land Acquisition Officer including the one by the predecessor-in-title of the appellant Surajmal. The Officer made an award on January 9, 1954 which is Ex. R. 3 on the record. It was amended on July 9, 1964. Early in 1977 notices were issued to the appellants to take compensation, hand over the possession and further to take possession of such parcels of land which were allotted to some of them. This is Ex. 3 in Surajmals case. Similar notices were issued in other cases.

3. 28 petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India were presented challenging the notifications issued under secs. 4, 6 and 9 of the Acquision Act mainly because they were violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. In the petitions, from which appeals No. 323 and 324 of 1971 are before us, even the Award Ex. R. 3 given by the Land Acquisition Officer was assailed and sought to be quashed.

4. The State of Rajasthan and the U.I. B., which had by then become the Urban Improvement Trust, by their joint answer, while admitting the salient facts regarding the issuing of notifications, contested each and every ground raised by the petitioners. They advanced additional pleas against the petitioners on the grounds of delay, estoppel and res judicata.

5. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioners were guilty of inordinate delay and that there was no reasonable ground to condone the same. Holding that the writ petitions could be dismissed on this score alone, he however examined the contentions of the petitioners and held that there was no force in the plea that the acquisition of the petitioners lands should have been made under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act (here in after called the Improvement Act) rather than under the Acquisition Act because the acquisition proceedings were commenced before the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur was constituted. For the same reason he rejected the argument that advantageous compensation under the Improvement Act was available to the petitioners. Repelling the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the State had practised discrimination in the matter of acquisition vis-a-vis certain influential persons, the learned Single Judge observed that those persons were not similarly situated. He also opined that what the State needed was the lands for the planned development of the city of Jaipur and not the area where the houses were situated. The plea of the petitioners that the State had given favourable treatment to certain persons not only by giving them lands but

Click Here to Read the rest of this document