award a suitable amount nsation to the petitioner, treating its land as industrial land instead of agriculture land. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the application was filed by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') and the NHAI was not impleaded as a party respondent. Counsel submitted that the correct facts were not brought into notice of the District Collector, Dausa, hence, a review petition was filed before the District Collector, ~ausa and the same was partly allowed vide order dated 21.03.2018 and the matter was remitted back to the Land Acquisition Officer (SDM), Lalsot, Dausa to decide the objections, raised by the respondents and pass the order for payment of compensation accordingly. Counsel submitted that pursuant to the subsequent order dated 21.03.2018, the matter was re-examined by the Land Acquisition Officer (SDM), Lalsot, Dausa, wherein a categorical finding was recorded that the land was acquired by the NHAI and the land in question was falling within 40 meters and the nature of such land cannot be converted and cannot be treated as industrial land and, accordingly, the nature of the land is treated as agricultural land. Counsel submitted that thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer (SDM), Lalsot, Dausa sent a reference to the Additional District Judge, Lalsot for passing the appropriate orders for grant of compensation. Counsel submitted that though the Additional District Judge, Lalsot was not having any jurisdiction to decide the reference as the matter pertains to land acquisition under the
