JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim relief for the quashing of the impugned notifications, which became respectively issued under sections 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'), notifications whereof are respectively embodied in Annexures P-1 and P-2.

2. The petitioners claim, that they have raised small houses on the acquired lands, and, in case the notifications (supra) are not quashed, they would be rendered homeless. Moreover, they contend, that the respondents have adopted a discriminatory approach, in yet continuing to subject their properties to acquisition, despite and especially when in respect of other properties located in the similar zone or area, they have chosen to release such properties from acquisition.

3. The notifications (supra) were respectively issued in the years 1990 and 1991, and, the public purpose for which they became issued, thus appertained to the development of residential-cum-commercial complex, Scheme No.3 by the Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Union Territory, Chandigarh. In pursuance to the making of the said notifications, an award bearing No.475 was rendered by the learned Collector concerned on 26.02.1993. On 06.04.1994, the lands were transferred to the Notified Area Committee. Moreover, the rapat possession of the acquired properties/lands was entered on 06.04.1994. It is also evident on a reading of the reply, as becomes furnished to the writ petition by the respondents, that the compensation, as became determined through award (supra), has been thus tendered, and, is yet available for being disbursed to the landowners concerned. Therefore, thereby accomplishment is secured qua the twin statutory ingredients, as expounded in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case titled " Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.", reported in (2020)8 SCC 129", and, as relating to:- (a) the necessity of tendering of compensation for its becoming claimed for being released to the landowners concerned; (b) the assumption of possession being evidently assumed by the acquiring authority, thus through drawing of a Rapat Roznamcha.

4. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made a vibrant submission before this Court, that since the assessment of compensation, as made by the learned Collector concerned, did not include determination of compensation in respect of their houses or structures raised on the acquired lands, therefore also the award (supra) is infirmly drawn.

5. However, the above ground also may not be well rested, as even if assumingly in contemporaneity to the issuance of the notifications (supra), thus structures, if any, were existing on the acquired lands, and, also assumingly even if no compensation in respect thereof, became determined by the learned Collector concerned. Nonetheless, in prompt sequel to the making of the award (supra) by the learned Collector concerned, the remedy to seek assessment of compensation qua thereof, was through a petition under Section 18-A of the Act of 1894, being preferred before the learned Collector concerned, thus for the same being transmitted to the learned Reference Court concerned, rather for enabling the latter to make quantification of compensation in respect of the structures, if any, as were purportedly existing on the acquired lands, and, which were raised prior to the making of