Hon’ble Vikram Nath, J.—This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 6.6.2005 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Special Secretary, Government of U.P. whereby the order dated 5-3-2003 passed by the State Government earlier under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1895 (in short referred to as the Act) excluding the petitioners plot Nos. 1059 area 0B-12B-10B and 1042 area 0B-13B-6B of village Rithani, district Meerut (in short referred to as the land in dispute) from the land acquisition proceedings, was cancelled.

2. The petitioner alleges to be the owner in possession of the land in dispute, over which he was running a factory in the name and style of M/S Vimco Chemical Industries for manufacturing sodium silicate. It is further alleged that the factory was set up in the year 1978. By means of Gazette Notification under Section 4 & 6 of the Act issued on 14.8.1987 and 4.9.1987 respectively certain land was sought to be acquired for the benefit of the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut for establishing a residential colony in the name of Shatabdi Nagar Scheme. The land in dispute was covered by the said notification. According to the petitioner, as he had a running factory established over the land in dispute, he objected for acquisition of the said land and prayed for exemption. As the State Government was not paying any heed to his request, the petitioner filed writ Petition No. 23183 of 1987 challenging the Notifications under Section 4 & 6 of the Act. During the pendency of the said writ petition it was also brought on record that Meerut Development Authority had recommended vide letter dated 14.2.1990 for excluding 35 plot from acquisition proceedings as they contained residential/industrial constructions. The list of 35 plots did not include the land in dispute. This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 23183 of 1987 left it open for the State Government to consider the grant of exemption to the land in dispute, vide judgement dated 11.9.1991. The State Government by the order dated 2.4.1996 rejected the representation of the petitioner for exemption, aggrieved by which the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16567 of 1996. According to the petitioner, the State Government by order dated 5-3-2003 granted exemption to the land in dispute from acquisition proceedings. However, the said order of exemption could not be communicated to the petitioner and in the meantime this Court by the order dated 17.7.2003 again left it open to the sole discretion of the State Government the question of granting exemption from acquisition. It appears that after the order dated 5.3.2003 was issued by the State Government, the Meerut Development Authority moved an application dated 10-12-2003 before the State Government for considering withdrawal of the said order granting exemption. The State Government by order dated 6.6.2005 withdrew the exemption granted earlier to the petitioner, the effect of which was that the land in dispute again became part of the acquisition proceedings. This order of withdrawal dated 6.6.2005 was also not communicated to the petitioner. However, he came to know of the same only when the Meerut Development Authority filed a Misc. Appeal before the District Judge being Misc. Appeal No. 109 of 2006. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the State Government on the ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice and no opportunity of show cause or of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

3. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the State and also by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut.

4. Stand taken by the State Government in its counter-affidavit is that the order dated 5-3-2003 was passed without considering the report of the Meerut Development Authority and therefore it was illegal and the State Government could rectify an illegal order and therefore, there was no il