JUDGMENT :- These three writ petitions raise common questions. The facts on which they are passed, broadly speaking, are similar. Therefore, they will all be decided by this judgment.

2. The petitions are under Art. 226 of the Constitution. They pray that proceedings for the acquisition of the petitioner's hind under the Land Acquisition Act are invalid and ought to be quashed and that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession over the land. The petitioners are the tenure-holders of various plots of land sought to be acquired and were, in actual cultivatory possession. In the U.P. Gazette, dated 9-4-1960 a notification, dated 2-1-1960 was published. This was under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying for general information that the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for a public purpose. It also stated that the Governor was of the opinion that the provisions of Sub-S. (1) of S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act were applicable and that he was further pleased to direct that in view of the provisions of Section 17(4) the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act shall not apply. The purpose of the acquisition was stated to be establishment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document