- (1.) Both these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order as identical questions of law and facts are involved in them.
(2.) Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, has raised some preliminary objections about the maintainability of the writ petitions and granting discretionary relief in favour of the petitioner society. Before I consider those preliminary objections, I would like to state the brief facts of the case.
(3.) In Writ Petition No. 3452/93 the petitioner society challenges acquisition proceedings relating to Khasra Nos. 59 and one-third of Khasra No. 60 situate in village Sitapur, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. The petitioner society has come out with the case that it had purchased the land Khasra No. 59, 60 and 61 through a registered sale-deed dated July 15,1991 and the land was recorded in the name of the society. Land bearing Khasra No. 59 measures 18 Biswas, one-third of Khasra No. 60 measures 4 Bighas and 17 Biswas and Khasra No. 61 measures 2 Bighas and 8 Biswas. Petition No. 3452/93 pertains to Khasra No. 59 and one-third of Khasra No. 60 only. Notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') published in Gazette on 5.2.1991 and the names of Gopi and Bhoma were shown as Khatedars/owners of the land. Declaration under S. 6 of the Act was made on 15.8.1991. The writ petition was filed by the Society on 16.3.1993. The main grounds of attack in the petition are that in the acquisition proceedings Notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was not published in the name of the petitioner society nor it was given any notice by the Land Acquisition Officer, even though the Society had purchased the land and was recorded Khatedar and that Notification under S. 9(1) and (3) of the Act was given on August 3, 1991 to the Khatedars while the declaration under S. 6 of the Act was made thereafter on August 15,1991 in the newspaper.;