Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : (On behalf of himself and P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. C. Das Gupta and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ. :) This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. The appellant is the owner of certain lands in village Nauraiya Khera. Out of those lands, 15.5 acres were requisitioned by the Defence Department of the Government of India and are still in their possession and we are not concerned with that. Besides that, the appellant has 9 acres of land which he had purchased many years ago with the idea of erecting a factory thereon. The appellant got information in May 1956 that steps were being taken to acquire his nine acres of land for an industrialist in Kanpur. He therefore wrote to the Collector of Kanpur in that connection. On June 25, 1956, however, a notification was issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act. No. 1 of 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), stating that certain land which was specified as 11.664 acres in village Nauraiya Khera was required for a company for the construction of textile machinery parts factory by Lakshmi Ratan Engineering Works Limited, Kanpur (hereinafter called the Works). This was followed on July 5, 1956 by a notification under S. 6 of the Act, which was in terms similar to the notification under S. 4. The notification also provided for the Collector to take possession of any waste or arable land forming part of the land mentioned in the Schedule to the notification immediately under the powers conferred by S. 17(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute that this notification was issued without taking any action under Part VII of the Act. On July 31, 1956, the Collector took possession of the land and handed it over to the Works along with the buildings standing on it.

2. In the meantime, the appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court on July 31, 1956, praying that the notification or July 5, 1956, be quashed and had also applied for interim stay. As however possession had already been taken on July 31, 1956, the application for interim stay was infructuous. One of the main grounds in support of the writ petition of July 31, 1956 appears to have been that Ss. 38 to 42 of the Act had not been complied with. It seems that thereafter steps were taken by the State Government to comply with the provisions of Ss. 38 to 42 of the Act. An agreement was entered into between the Government and the Works on August 5, 1956 and was published in the Gazette on August 11, 1956; but this was done without making an inquiry either under S. 5A or S. 40 of the Act. Therefore, on September 14, 1956, an enquiry was ordered by the Government under Section 40. The enquiry was accordingly made and the inquiry officer submitted his report on October 3, 1956. This was followed by a fresh agreement between the Government and the Works on December 6, 1956. On December 7, 1956, a fresh notification was issued under S. 6 of the Act after the formalities provided under Ss. 38 to 42 had been completed. Thereupon the appellant filed another writ petition on January 29, 1957, challenging the notification of December 7, 1956, on various grounds.

3. It is not necessary to give in detail the grounds on which the notification of December 7, 1956 was attacked. It is enough to say that one of the grounds was that the notification was invalid as it was not in compliance with S. 40 (1)(b) of the Act read with the fifth clause of the matter to be provided in the agreement under S. 41. The learned Single Judge however held that the agreement was in accordance with the provisions of Ss. 40 & 41. He also held that there was no force in the other contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and dismissed the petition. The appellant then went in appeal which was dismissed. He then applied for a certificate to enable him to appeal to this Court, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

4. The only question that has been urged on behalf of the appellant before us is that the