ORDER :- This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate Writ for cancellation of certain notifications issued under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, and for a direction upon the respondents to forbear from interfering with the petitioners lands covered by the said Notifications. The Petitioner is the owner of certain C. S. Plots bearing numbers 535 and 536 in Mouza Guchuria within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Barasat, in the; district of 24 Parganas. It is allged that the petitioners said lands were notified for acquisition in Land Acquisition Act Case No. 23 of 1946-47 in connection with a Railway Colony Scheme at Madhyamgram but ultimately the said lands were released from acquisition. It. is alleged that for some time past, certain refugees from Pakistan have been trespassing, upon the petitioners lands purporting to act. under the authority of the Government of West Bengal and the Collector of 24 Parganas and they are causing excavations on the lands, cutting down trees and bamboo clumps and doing diverse other acts causing damage to the said lands. On the 30th of July 1950, there were published in the Calcutta Gazette of that date two Notifications, one bearing No. 7268 L. Dev. dated the 29th June 1950, purported to be issued under S. 4 of the Bengal Land Development and Planning Act and the other bearing No. 7270 L. Dev. dated the 29th June, 1950 purported to be issued under sections 6 and 7 of the said Act. These two Notifications were issued under the said Sections of the said Act for the purpose of acquiring the said two plots of lands belonging to the petitioner. Thereafter, two other Notifications both dated 30th October 1950 and bearing Nos. 11838 L. Dev. and 11838 L. Dev. were purported to be issued under S. 4 and S. 6 read with S. 7 respectively in respect of the said two plots of lands of the petitioner along with other lands. These two Notifications were published simultaneously in the Calcutta Gazette dated the 16th November, 1950. 2. It appears from the Notification No. 11838 L. Dev. that the C. S. Plot No. 535 is omitted from that Notification but this omission is obviously a mistake because the area given in the Notification No. 11836 tallies exactly with the area given in the Notification No. 11838 L. Dev. 2. It appears from the Notification No. 11838 L. Dev. that the C. S. Plot No. 535 is omitted from that Notification but this omission is obviously a mistake because the area given in the Notification No. 11836 tallies exactly with the area given in the Notification No. 11838 L. Dev. Thereafter, on the 2nd December 1950, the petitioner applied to the land Acquisition Collector for release of his lands from the purported acquisition. It is alleged that on the 30th January 1951, the Land Acquisition Collector visited the place for the purpose of an enquiry and on the 19th November 1951, the Land Acquisition Officer also visited the plots in question and although as a result of the enquiry, the said officers are alleged to have promised to release the lands of the petitioner, no steps were however taken in that direction. Thereafter on the 7th March 1951, and 11th March, 1951, the petitioner wrote two letters to the Government asking for redress. Having received no reply, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a Rule Nisi on the 14th March, 1951. 3. It appears that after the Rule was issued, by a Notification No. 7782 L. Dev. dated the 15th June 1951, and published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 5th July 1951, (Part I Page 1655), the Government cancelled so much of the Notification No. 11836 L. Dev. under S. 4 of the Act XXI of 1948 as related to the petitioners said two plots and also other plots mentioned in the said Notification. 4. On behalf of the respondents-opposite parties, one Satyendra Nath Das Gupta, the Special Land Acquisition Collector of Alipore, 24 Parganas, has affirmed the counter-affidavit filed in this case. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit, it is stated that in the Notifications Nos. 11836 and 11838 L. Dev., it was through inadvertence of the Refugee Rehabilitation Department that the disputed lands in question were included along with other lands, and in pursuance of such Notifications, the Land Acquisition Case No. 134 of 1950-51 was started for the acquisition of the said lands and in the notice locally served under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act, these plots of lands were not mentioned and proper action has been taken for rectification of this error. Although, this counter-affidavit was affirmed on the 31st August 1951, there is no reference made herein to the Notification No. 7782 of the 15th June 1951. This paragraph 9 of the affidavit is verified as being based upon information derived from the records of the case. I enquired of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the State as to whether they were in a position to produce the Notification issued under Rule 8 of the Land Development and Planning Rules but they expressed their inability to do so, and intimated the Court that they were not able to lay their hands upon a copy of such Notification. The Notification dated the 15th June 1951, has been annexed to the affidavit in reply. It appears further that subsequent to the filing of the counter-affidavit the Government has purported to issue another Notification being Notification No. 16038 L. Dev. dated the 29th November, 1951, and this Notification is purported to be made under S. 6 read with S. 7 of the Land Development and Planning Act. This Notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 13th December 1951, and includes the petitioners plots in question. This declaration further purports to cancel the Notification No. 7270 L. Dev. wrongly dated as the 28th June, 1950, which was published in the Calcutta Gazette of the 13th November 1950. 5. It is clear from the facts stated above that Notification No. 7270 L. Dev. dated the 29th June 1950, and purported to be made under S. 6 read with S. 7 of the Land Development Act was an invalid Notification being published simultaneously with the Notification under S. 4 bearing number 7268 L. Dev. The subsequent notification dated the 30th October 1950 being Notification No. 11836 L. Dev. which also comprised the petitioners lands in question was published simultaneously with the Notification No. 11838 made under Sections 6 and 7 of the Land Development Act. As I have pointed out that this Notification No. 11838 also covered the disputed lands and being published simultaneously was also bad in view of my judgment delivered in MAHOMED SHAFI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 55 Cal WN 463. As I have pointed out that this Notification No. 11838 also covered the disputed lands and being published simultaneously was also bad in view of my judgment delivered in MAHOMED SHAFI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 55 Cal WN 463. The position therefore is that there were two Notifications published under S. 4 of the Act bearing No. 7268 dated the 29th June 1950 and No. 11836 dated the 30th October 1950 in respect of the same plots of lands and it must therefore be presumed as a matter of construction that the second Notification under Sec. 4 bearing No. 11836 was intended to supersede the earlier Notification, because the two Notifications could not co-exist. The result therefore was that the first notification under sec. 4 must be deemed to have ceased to exist for all practical purposes. While this second Notification under Sec. 4 was subsisting, the Notification No. 7782 of the 15th June 1951, was published and as I have pointed out it purported to cancel the Notification No. 11836 only in so far as it related to the petitioners lands in question along with other lands and excluded the plots which are the subject-matter of this application from the notified area likely to be acquired under the Land Development and Planning Act. It follows from this that the plots having ceased to be part of the notified area, the declaration published on the 13th December 1951 bearing No. 16038 L. Dev. dated the 29th November 1951 must be held to be invalid, because it is only in respect of a notified area that a declaration under section 6 or 7 can be made. There can be no question that the two Notifications purported to have been made under S. 6 read with S. 7 and bearing Nos. 7270 and 11838 are bad being simultaneously published with the Notification under S. 4 and the Rule would have been made absolute on that ground alone and the second Notification under S. 4 bearing No. 11836 would have been allowed to stand but the Notification of the 15th June 1951 has brought about a change in the situation as it has purported to cancel the Notification No. 11838 in so far as it related to the petitioners lands in question. 6. 6. Having regard to this fact, I am of the view that the Notification published on the 13th December 1951, bearing No. 16038 L. Dev. must be held to be bad and as the Court is entitled to take notice of subsequent events for the purpose of giving effective and complete relief to the petitioner, I propose to cancel this Notification also, bearing No. 16038 dated the 29th November 1951 made under S. 6 read with S. 7 of the Land Development and Planning Act. Certain other points of law relating to the validity of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act and some of the provisions thereof were argued before me, but as the point on which I have come to a decision is sufficient to dispose of this application, I have not thought it necessary to enter into a discussion about the correctness or otherwise of the said contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 7. In the result, this petition must succeed and the Rule is made absolute to the extent that the Notifications bearing Nos. 11838 and 16038 dated the 30th October 1950, and 29th November 1951 respectively are cancelled. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of the present proceeding the hearing fee is assessed at two gold mohurs. 8. It is stated by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the possession of the lands in question is with the petitioner and the statement made in the counter-affidavit to the effect that the Government has taken possession of the lands on the 4th of November 1950, is not a correct statement. So no direction need be given with regard to possession. Rule made absolute