KIRTY, J. :- The three above-mentioned cases have come up before this Bench as a result of two separate orders dated 4th November, 1968, passed by a Division Bench, and 28-10-1968, passed by a learned Single Judge. By order dated 4-11-1968 in Writ No. 4994 of 1964 connected with Writ No. 1951 of 1964, Jagdish Sahai and Gangeshwar Prasad, JJ., referred the following question to a Full Bench:-

"Whether the description of the land sought to be acquired as given in the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued in these cases sufficiently complied with the requirement of law?"

By the order dated 28-10-1968 G. C. Mathur, J., referred the following questions for decision by a Full Bench:-

"No. 1:- Whether the description of the land sought to be acquired without giving the numbers of the plots but by referring to a map which may be inspected in the office of the Collector meets the requirements of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of giving particulars of the land?

No. 2:- Whether it makes any difference to the giving of particulars if the notification under Section 4 or Section 6 is coupled with a notification under Section 17 of the Act?"

As a result of the two aforesaid orders this Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the decision of the questions quoted above.

2. From the questions quoted above, it will be apparent that in Writ No. 2240 of 1968 the two questions referred are of general nature without any particular reference to the particular facts of the case concerned; but the question referred under order dated 4-11-1968 has been framed with particular reference to the facts of the two cases in which referring order was made.

3. The reason and the necessity for passing both the referring orders are that there is an apparent conflict on the point in two decisions of this Court given by two separate Division Benches. These two cases are:- Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Asrey Lal (decided by Jagdish Sahai and Broome, JJ.), 1967 All LJ 188 : (AIR 1967 All 4), Shyam Singh Rawat v. State of U. P.-decided by Broome and Gupta, JJ., 1968 All LJ 487.

4. Before dealing with the questions which have given cause for reference to this Bench, it will be appropriate to briefly state the relevant facts pertaining to each of the three writ petitions concerned.

5. In Writ Petition No. 4994 of 1964 a notification which purported to be under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 14-5-1960. The relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:-

"No. 799/VIII-56-57: Under sub-s. (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (I of 1894) I, D. K. Bhattacharya, Collector, Mathura, hereby notify for general information that the land mentioned in the schedule (see for this schedule the top of p. 418) is needed for public purposes.

2. Under Section 5-A of the said Act, any person interested In the land may within twenty-one days after the issue of this notification make an objection to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality in writing to me. Thereafter another notification purporting to be under Section 6 of the Act was published in the U. P. Gazette on 20-1-1962. The material portion of this notification reads as under:-

"No. 7734-C/XII-CA-165-61: With reference to Notification No. 799/VIII-56-57-58, dated March 30, 1960 issued by the Collector of Mathura, under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), the Governor (after considering the report made under Section

SCHEDULE

District Pargana Mauza Approximate Area

Mathura Mathura Mathura Banger 2.15 acres.

For what purposes required :-

For construction of houses by the Sudamapuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

Note:-The site plan may be inspected in my office.

D. K. Bhattacharya Ziladhish, Mathura.

5-A, sub-section (2) of