1. Writ petitioner challenges the acquisition proceedings on several grounds :

(1) The acquisition has been based on satisfaction of the Government and not the Collector.

(2) Before issuing Form III notice under Section 4(1), it should be notified in the District Gazette, but in this case, it has not been done. The notice in Form III has been issued and signed by the Special Tahsildar on 4.3.1996. Form III as printed shows that it should indicate the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) had been published in the District Gazette. Whereas, in the instant case, these portions are left blank and indeed, it could not be otherwise because the publication was effected only on 7.3.1996.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the notice under Rule 3(ii) is not in conformity with Section 4(1). What Section 4(1) demands or requires is the satisfaction of the Collector. Whereas, there is nothing in the notice issued under Section 4(1) which indicates the satisfaction of the Collector and therefore, if it is apparent from the notice that there is no satisfaction of the Collector, then the proceedings need to be quashed. When the sovereign power of emin