The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory for the acquisition of land that is not waste or arable. The provisions of Section 5-A cannot be dispensed with even in cases of urgency under Section 17 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by Gur Dayal and 41 others for the issue of a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to restrain the respondents, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Administrator, Municipal Board, lucknow, and the Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow Improvement Trust, Lucknow, from continuing the proceeding for the acquisition of houses and land mentioned in the notices purporting to be under Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to quash the orders under which these notices were issued.

( 2 ) IN view of a few material questions involved in the case which are favourable to the petitioners it is not necessary to refer to all the facts which have been given by the parties in their affidavits, nor is it necessary to make a reference to the various documents annexed by them to their affidavits. For example, it is not necessary to express any opinion as to whether the land being acquired could or could not be transferred to the Municipal Board for carrying out the scheme known as Lucknow Municipal Board Mahanagar Housing Scheme, and whether the purpose of the scheme can be deemed to be a public purpose. In the present case, notices were issued with regard to land which can be treated as Abadi sites on which constructions of petitioners Nos. 1 to 11 stand. The land was not a waste or arable land and for that reason the compliance of provisions of Section 5-A could not be dispensed with. It is on this ground that the notices shall be quashed. When the land in question cannot be acquired without holding a proper enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, it will not be necessary to consider the other question, namely, whether the land was being acquired for a public purpose. It is for this reason that I am confining myself to only such facts which can justify the grant of a writ in favour of the petitioners.

( 3 ) THERE is virtually no controversy on the material facts of the case. All the petitioners are residents of village, Mahanagar-Rahimnagar which is a Hadbasti village in the vicinity of the city of Lucknow, situate on the Lucknow-Faizabad road to its north. On 26-9-1946 the State government issued a notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act notifying that the land of 17 villages, as detailed therein, was needed for a public purpose, namely, construction of government buildings by the Public Works Department. 793 acres land of village mahanagar-Rahimnagar was included in the notification. It was further notified under sub-section (4) of Section 17 that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the acquisition proceeding. No enquiry, as contemplated by Section 5-A, was conducted and it was on 23-11-1946 that a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published with regard to only 335. 75 acres of land of village Mahanagar. The Governor at the same time acted under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the act and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Lucknow to take possession of land, being waste or arable land, mentioned in the schedule, on the expiry of the period of notice mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 9. This land or part thereof has already been acquired. Another notification under Section 6 with regard to the remaining land was issued on 26-6-1948 and it was worded in the same manner as the earlier notification of 23-11-1946.

( 4 ) IT was in pursuance of the letter notification that the Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 3, issued notices, Annexures D. 1 to D. 10 to the affidavit, calling upon the petitioners Nos. 1 to 11 to put forward their claim for the land and properties being acquired. These notices were served on the petitioners between May 20, 1958 and May 22, 1958. The respondents conducted survey operations in the locality, which gave an apprehension to petitioners Nos. 12 to 42 that simila