( 1 ) S. C. A. No. 1568 of 1987 and S. C. A. No. 5149 of 1989 are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the acquisition proceedings taken by the State Gujarat for the purpose of acquiring land for L and T Ltd. , a public company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956. Said company is respondent No. 4 and 3 respectively in these two petitions. But S. C. A. No. 5171 of 1991 is filed by M/s. L and T to challenge the order of withdrawing from the acquisition passed by the State of Gujarat under sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the lands covered by S. C. A. No. 1568 of 1987 and S. C. A. No. 5149 of 1989, and two other lands. Thus, all these 3 petitions are inter-connected and the final fate of each petition is also dependent on the final fate of the controversy between the parties. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be appropriate, proper and just to decide and dispose of all these three proceedings by common judgment and therefore, we will proceed to decide them by this common judgment.

( 2 ) IN S. C. A. No. 1568 of 1987 and S. C. A. No. 5149 of 1989 the petitioners are challenging the acquisition proceedings taken by the State of Gujarat for acquiring the land for M/s. L and T. It is claim of the petitioner in S. C. A. No. 1568 of 1987 that the petitioner is a Co-op. Society registered under the Gujarat Co-op. Societies act, the petitioner had purchased the land bearing revenue survey No. 40 admeasuring 5 acres 19 gunthas of village Magdalla, Taluka Chorasi, and it is the further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner-society is formed for the public purpose for providing houses to the members belonging to middle strata of the society. Therefore, when the petitioner-society is established for achieving a public purpose acquisition of their land is not at all justified.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in S. C. A. No. 1568 of 1987 further contends that there is no publication of the Notification under Sec. 4 in the local daily. It is further contended that there were 2 notifications under Sec. 4 and in the said notification the order for acquisition was shown as 1 Are and 11 sq. mtrs. and 20 Ares and 40 sq. mtrs; whereas in the notification under Sec. 6, the total area is shown as 2 Hectares and 1 Are and 11 sq. mtrs. Thus, the notifications under Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 are not consistent and they are showing inconsistent area. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the acquisition in question is acquisition for a company and consequently acquisition proceedings could be put into force to acquire the land only if the company executes an agreement mentioning under Sec. 41a of the Act. But in the instant case, no such agreement was executed under Sec. 41a before the issuance of notifications of Secs. 4 and 6. There is no compliance of Rule 4 of the Companies Land Acquisition Rules. Therefore, in the circumstances, acquisition is not bona fide and it is by way of fraud and colourable exercise of powers by the State Government. Hence, the petitioner seeks to quash the said acquisition proceedings.

( 4 ) THE claim of the petitioner in S. C. A. No. 1568 of 1987 is resisted by the state Government by filing counter-affidavit. It is contended that the petitionersociety had constructed 33 flats in the land of 500 sq. mtrs. The location of the said flats clearly indicates that the society is not meant for residential purposes. Though N. A. permission was granted in the year 1981 no construction is made. This clearly indicates that the investment is for speculative purposes. There is proper publication of the notification under Sec. 4 as well as under Sec. 6. Thus, it is contended that the acquisition is for public purpose and is valid and legal as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 5 ) L and T has also contested the claim of the petitioner. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the manag