An inquiry under section 40 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act can be held before any notification is issued under section 4.

W. BOROOME, J. :- These six special appeals (three fleid by Messrs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and three by the State of U. P.) are directed against a decision of Satish Chandra J., dated 29-3-1965, by which three writ petitions (Nos. 952, 1161 and 1620 of 1961) were disposed of by a common judgment, and it will be convenient to deal with them, together.

2. The petitioners in the three writ petitions are the cultivators of various plots of land in the villages of Madhopur Muafi, Nowgaon, Bitaura, Fatehganj West and Kurtara (district Bareilly, which are being acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for a Synthetic rubber factory to be set up by Messrs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Originally a combined notification under sections 2 and 17 (4) of the Act was issued on 2-4-1960 (published in the Gazette of 9-4-1960), followed by another notification dated 4-4-1960 under section 40 (2) of the Act, appointing the S. D. O., (II) of Bareilly to hold the inquiry that is necessary in the case of acquisition for a company. Thereafter an agreement was executed by the Company in accordance with section 41 on 19-6-1960; and a notification under section 6 was issued on 30-6-60 (published in the Gazette of 2-7-1960). At this stage a number of writ petitions were filed, challenging the various notifications that had been issued, and these petitions were due to come up for hearing in March 1961. Meanwhile, however, the Government realised that there were certain legal flaws in the notifications that had been issued and accordingly passed orders on 23-2-1961, cancelling the earlier notifications under section 4/17 (4) and 6, dated 2-4-1960 and 30-6-1960 respectively, but maintaining the notifications under section 40 (2) dated 4-4-1960 with slight verbal modifications. On the sante day (23-2-1961) a fresh notification under sections 4/17 (4) was issued; and the following day (24-2-1961) a fresh notification was issued under section 6. The cancellation of the earlier notification and the issue of the fresh notification were all published together in the Gazette of 25-2-1961. As a result of these changes the earlier writ petitions, became infructuous and were dismissed on 17-3-1961. In pursuance of the notification under section 6 dated 24-2-1961 the Collector issued a notice under section 9, calling for claims to compensation; and on 17-3-1961 a notification was published under section 17 (1) authorising him to take possession of the land on the expiry of 15 days from the date of that notice. Possession was accordingly taken and the land was handed over to the Company on 21-3-1961. The writ petitions with which we are at present concerned were filed on 3-4-1961, challenging the notifications that had been issued under section 4/17 (4), 6 and 17 (1) on 23-2-1961, 24-2-1961 and 17-3-1961 respectively.

3. The following three points were argued before the learned single Judge :

(1) That the simultaneous combined notification under section 4 and section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act was illegal;

(2) That the declaration under section 6 of the Act could not validly be made until the notification under section 4 had been published in the Gazette and,

(3) That the inquiry contemplated by section 40 (2) of the Act could not be held prior to the issue of the notification under section 4.

The learned single Judge repelled the petitioner's arguments on the first two points, but agreed with them on the third point, holding that the inquiry made under section 40 (2) on the basis of the order dated 4-4-1960 was contrary to law because it had been made before there was any valid notification under section 4. He further held that since the Government could not give its consent to acquisition for the company under section 40 unless there had been a valid inquiry, the subsequent proceedings under sections 6 and 9 were without jurisdiction. He accordingly quashed, the notification under section 6 dated 24-2-1961 and the notification under S. 17 (1) da