( 1. ) UNDAUNTED by the unsuccess before the Single Bench in Writ Petition No. 6879/2000 the appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 18-3-2002.

( 2. ) THE brief resume of facts required to be stated for the disposal of this appeal is that looking to the needs of general public, Municipal Corporation, Khandwa decided to construct a bus stand so as to enable the general public to get means of conveyance to a particular place. For this purpose, earlier the State Government issued a notification which was subject-matter of challenge before the High Court but as the proceedings of acquisition could not be completed within the statutory period, the proceedings initiated in furtherance with the notification dated 2-6-95 were dropped.

( 3. ) AGAIN on 12-9-2000 the Municipal Corporation, Khandwa passed a resolution for the construction of bus stand. Thereafter, on 20-9-2000 the Collector wrote to the Commissioner tor involving an urgency clause keeping in view of the need for construction of the bus stand. The Commissioner being satisfied that there is a need to take recourse to urgency provision, vide letter dated 23-10-2000 granted permission to take recourse to urgency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act) ( 4. ) A notification under Sections 4 and 17 of the Act was published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 10-11-2000. The notification also published in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality in the regional language, i. e. , nav Bharat, dated 6-11-2000 and dainik Bhaskar, dated 8-11-2000, as required by law, declaring that the land in question, is likely to be needed for construction of bus stand.

( 5. ) THE appellant challenged the aforesaid notification in Writ Petition No. 6879/2000 on the following grounds :-

(1) The permission was granted by the Commissioner by applying Section 17

(1) of the Act without application of mind, (2) A very big area of 11. 5 acres of land is being acquisitioned. Such a big area will not be required for the bus stand. Even in the big cities of the State the bus stands are not constructed in such a big area and this shows the malafides of the authorities. (3) The land of the appellant is in the industrial area and appellant-Company is intending to re-start its production. (4) Adjacent to the land, in question, there is Government land and there was no justification for depriving the appellant of its valuable land and further the appellant has been deprived of its valuable right to object to the intended land acquisition. The use of urgency clause is malafide, colourable and a device to deprive the appellant from raising the objections. (5) The approval for urgency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Act was given by the Deputy Commissioner who was not a competent authority. (6) Under the Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 the Chief Planner reserved the land, in question, for installation of heavy and medium industries. This Act (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) was repealed by M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to repealing Act ). The scheme which was framed under the provisions of the Repealed Act would continue to be the scheme for the purpose of Repealing Act. Therefore, the land use cannot be changed and the land reserved for installation of heavy and medium industries cannot be acquired for the purpose of construction of bus stand.

( 6. ) THE respondents combated the claim of the appellant, stating that keeping in view the urgent need for construction of the bus stand urgency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Act of 1894 was invoked. The permission to take recourse to urgency clause was given by the Commissioner and not by the Deputy Commissioner as is being posed by the appellant. According to them, the entire proceedings are perfectly just and proper in accordance with the provisions of law. In the absence of any