K.N. SETH, J. :- This appeal arises out of proceedings for the acquisition of about 67 bighas (1,73,677 square yards) of land situated within the Municipal limits of Ghaziabad. A resolution was passed by the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad, on 12th October, 1941 to acquire the aforesaid land for the improvement and expansion of Ghaziabad town. This resolution was not given effect to due to various conflicting forces working within the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board again passed a resolution on 15th February, 1946 for the acquisition of the aforesaid land under Sections 8 (1) (a) and 117 of the U. P. Municipalities Act and a notification dated 18th December, 1946 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette dated 21st December, 1946. The notifications under Sections 6 and 17 were published in the Gazette dated 15th March, 1947 and possession of the land was taken on 5th February, 1948.

2. The appellant society was registered under the Registration of Societies Act and the certificate of Corporation was issued on 28th August, 1945. One of the objects of the Society was to acquire land, buildings and other properties by purchase, lease, mortgage, exchange or other means and for resale for Town Planning, building etc. with this object in view the Corporation purchased that very land for which the Board had initiated acquisition proceedings. The Corporation planned a housing scheme with roads, parks etc.

3. Objections under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were filed regarding the amount of compensation treating the land as a potential building site. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 1st April, 1949 allowing compensation to the objectors at the agricultural rates. The claimants then made an application to the Collector requiring that the matter be referred for determination of the Court. The claim was resisted by the State of U. P. on the ground that the land acquired had no potential value as a building site and was purely agricultural land in possession of the occupancy tenants and the compensation awarded on the market value of the land according to the use to which the land was put at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was a valid one.

4. The learned District Judge held that the land was validly acquired under Section 8 (1) (a) of the U. P. Municipalities Act and that the land when acquired was quite unfit for building purpose and had no special value. It was conceded that if Section 8 (1) (a) of the Municipalities Act applied to the facts of the case, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate. The learned District Judge accordingly dismissed the reference giving rise to the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two questions before us: (1) that the land was not acquired under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (a) of the U. P. Municipalities Act and the provisions of Section 66 of the Town Improvement Act and Paragraph 10 (3) of the Schedule appended to the Town Improvement Act were not attracted; and (2) that Section 66 of the Town Improvement Act read with paragraph 10 (3) of the Schedule is void under Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. Under Section 66 of the Town Improvement Act whenever a Municipal Board, or other local authority, acquires land for any of the purposes mentioned in clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Municipalities Act, the modifications of the Land Acquisition Act contained in the schedule appended to the Town Improvement Act shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to every such acquisition. Paragraph 10 (3) of the Schedule provides that for purposes of clause First of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the market value of the land shall be the market value according to the use to which the land was put at the date with reference to which the market value is to be determined under that clause. Unde