( 1. ) PETITIONERS in this writ petition are assailing the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of construction of houses for M. P. Housing Board.

( 2. ) IT is averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 Gulabi Nagar griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit is a Housing Society and has entered into an agreement to purchase the land from petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 on 21-8-86. Notification under Section 4 was published in the M. P. Gazette, dated 27-1-89 and declaration under Section 6 was published in M. P. Gazette, dated 27-10-89 under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioner No. 1 entered in agreement (Annexure D), dated 21-8-1986 to purchase the land, petitioner No. 1/society is formed with a view to provide houses to the poor persons.

( 3. ) IT is further submitted by the petitioner that proceedings under urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 were initiated against holders, certain land was declared surplus. The holders have prayed for exemption under Section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. The provision of urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act reveals that act is having the overriding effect as provided under Section 42 of the Act. The land belonging to petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 ought to have been exempted and matter is pending before the State Government for final decision for grant of exemption under Section 20. Though the land was declared surplus but no final statement has been issued under Section 9 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

( 4. ) PETITIONER further submits that invocation of Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is bad in law, after six months of issuance of Notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6 was issued, earlier acquisition of these lands was withdrawn as per order dated 5-3-1988, there-after the permission was given on 26-11-88 to invoke the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act. The petitioner is challenging the invocation of Section 17, mind has not been applied as required under Section 17 (4) and Government has granted exemption to other holders under Section 20, exemption ought to have been granted in case of petitioners also. It is further submitted that purpose of the petitioner No. 1/society is also to provide the houses to the members of the society, by not deciding the application for exemption under section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling Act the respondents have acted arbitrarily, double standards have been applied, same yardsticks have not been followed.

( 5. ) IN the return filed on behalf of respondents it is pointed out that they have adopted the return filed in M. P. No. 1708/90, an additional return has been filed for the specific purpose of present writ petition. In the return filed in M. P. No. 1708/90, it is pointed out that land was declared surplus and petitioner No. 2 had no authority to enter in any agreement to transfer the property to petitioner No. 1 as such the entire petition is frivolous and not maintainable. Petitioner/society has no locus standi to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. Land is required for the public purpose by the Housing Board to provide houses as per the scheme of the Housing Board, 60% of the houses are reserved for economically weaker sections and shelterless people. Element of public utility in the scheme is involved. Housing is an urgent need as such invocation of urgency clause is proper, enquiry under section 5-A has been rightly dispensed with. Petitioner is bound by the outcome of the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, acquisition of land has been properly made, no interference is required.

( 6. ) SHRI AG. Dhande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners has submitted that since proceedings were earlier initiated and it was decided not to invoke urgency clause as reflected in order dated 5-3-88, later grant of permission to invoke urgency clause is bad in law. His furth