B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) The present special appeals have been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order dated 10-1-1997 passed in a bunch of forty-three S.B. Civil Writ Petitions treating S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 469/1996 (Bheru Lal v. State of Rajasthan) as the main writ petition. All the said writ petitions have been dismissed by the common judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, all the petitioners therein have preferred the special appeals and the same are heard together and disposed of by the common judgment.
(2.) The facts involved in these cases are not in dispute. The respondent-State sought for compulsory acquisition of about 4800 Bighas of land for the purpose of Plan Development, i.e., constructing residential houses in the revenue estate of village Bhuvana, tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "the Act"). The subsequent developments have been as follows :- 20-2-90 The notifications under S. 4(1) of the Act were published in the local newspapers. 30-3-90 1-4-90 20-5-91 Gram Panchayat, Bhuvana filed Writ Petition No. 2255/91 challenging the said notifications published in the local newspapers and this Court passed the following "Meanwhile status quo, as it exists today, with respect to the land in question will be maintained." 4-6-92 Notification u/S. 4 of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Official Gazette. 13-11-92 Substance of the said notification under S. 4. was affixed at the conspicous places. 17-5-93 Substance of the said notification under S. 4. was published in the local newspapers. 19-5-93 24-5-94 Declaration under S. 6 of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Official Gazette. 19-10-94 Declaration under S. 6 was published in the local newspapers. 11-10-94 28-10-94 Writ Petition No. 2255/91 filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed as withdrawn.
(3.) Persons interested preferred the writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings but no interim relief was granted to any of the petitioners therein. The main grounds of challenge in all the petitions had been as under :- (a) the provisions of Section 4 of the Act were not complied with. (b) declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made after the expiry of the period prescribed under the Act. (c) the respondents gave discriminatory treatment as some land had been released by them on the applications of the land owners.;