JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - On November 11, 1965, a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published by the Collector, Saharanpur, notifying that certain lands were to be acquired for purposes of Arya Kanya Higher Secondary and Intermediate College, Khalapar, Saharanpur. Objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed by respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5. After considering the objections, the Collector made a report to the State Government. Thereafter a notification under Section 6 of the Act dated May 4, 1959, was thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 1621 of 1959 before this Court, challenging the notification under Section 6,. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on September 6, 1961, and the notification under Section 6 was quashed. The writ petition was allowed on the ground that respondent no. 3 had not been given a proper opportunity of being heard in support of his objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter respondent no. 3 was given an opportunity of being heard on May 14, 1962, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made a report to the Collector, stating that it would not be desirable to proceed with the acquisition of the land. In the report, it was mentioned that, though land was required for the need of the College, the land sought to be acquired should not be acquired and some alternative step should be acquired. On the basis of this report, the Collector, by a notification dated May 29, 1962, withdrew the acquisition proceedings. It is this notification which is challenged by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a society which runs the Arya Kanya Higher Secondary School and Intermediate College for which acquisition proceedings were initially started, The only ground, upon which the impugned order is challenged by the petitioner, is that the Collector had no power to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. In the impugned order, the Collector has stated that he was acting in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings or the notification under Section 4 could be validly withdrawn only by the State Government and that, the Collector had no power to do so. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the acquisition proceedings or the notification under Section 4 could be validly withdrawn only by the State Government and that, the Collector had no power to do so. On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that, since Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by the U. P. Legislature, confers power on the Collector to issue a notification under Section 4, the Collector has the power by virtue of 3. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to rescind or withdraw the notification. He has placed reliance on the following observations of the Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1593 at 1602 : "In the first place under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act (No. 10 of 1897) the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it. Therefore, it is always open to Government to rescind a notification under Section 4 or under Section 8, and with-draw under Section 48 (1) is not the only way in which a notification under Section 4 or Section 6 can be brought to an end." 4. This case was concerned with the Land Acquisition Act without the U. P. amendment and the Supreme Court observed that the Government could, by virtue of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, withdraw a notification under Section 4. The question before me is somewhat different and is whether the Collector can withdraw the notification made by him under Section 4. These observations help the respondents only to this extent that the power to issue a notification under Section 4 is one to which Section 21 of the General Clauses Act may be applicable if the context does not otherwise indicate. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is only a rule of construction and the question of the existence of an implied power of cancellation must be determined with reference to the context and the subject matter of the statute. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act is only a rule of construction and the question of the existence of an implied power of cancellation must be determined with reference to the context and the subject matter of the statute. In State of Bihar v. D.N. Ganguly, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 1018, the Supreme Court held that the rule of construction enunciated by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, in so far as it refers to the power of rescinding or cancelling the original order, cannot be invoked in respect of the provisions of Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which confers a power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication. I have, therefore, to examine the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as they apply to the present case, to find out whether a power to withdraw or cancel the notification under Section 4 can be held to vest in the Collector or not. Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act provides : "4 (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality." 5. By U. P. Act XXII of 1954, the words "or Collector" were added in Section 4 (1) after the word "Government". The result of this amendment is that a notification under Section 4 may be issued either by the appropriate Government or by the Collector. Section 5A empowers any person interested in the land notified under Section 4 to file objections. Sub-sec. (2) of this section provides for the disposal of the objections in these words : "5-A (2) . Every objection under sub-sec. (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit the case for the decision of the appropriate Government, together with the record of the proceedings held by him and a report containing his recommendations on the objections. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final." 6. The material part of Section 6 (1) reads thus : "6 (I) Subject to the provisions of part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-sec. (2) , that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders." 7. The only other provision, which is material, is Section 48 (I) which provides : "48 (1) Except in the case provided for in Section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land in which possession has not been taken." 8. Obviously: the powers under Section 48 are not exercisable by the collector and the impugned order cannot be justified under Section 48. After the issue of the notification under Section 4, the Collector is required by Section 5-A to entertain objections and, after hearing the objectors and making such inquiry as he thinks necessary, to submit his report to the State Government. He has not invested with any power by Section 5-A to finally dispose of the objections. He can only make a report and make his re-commendations on the objections. The final decision on the objections has to be taken by the appropriate Government on the basis of the Collector's report and re-commendation. If the appropriate Government is of the opinion that there is substance in the objections, is may drop the proceedings but if, upon a consideration of the report, the appropriate Government is satisfied that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, it shall issue a declaration under Section 6 (1). These provisions make it amply clear that, after making the notification under Section 4, the Collector has no power to take any decision and the decision whether the acquisition proceedings are to continue or are to be dropped has to be taken by the appropriate Government. These provisions necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Collector cannot, upon a consideration of the objections filed under Section 5-A (1) , come to the conclusion that the objections are well founded and that the acquisition proceedings should be dropped. These provisions necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Collector cannot, upon a consideration of the objections filed under Section 5-A (1) , come to the conclusion that the objections are well founded and that the acquisition proceedings should be dropped. The jurisdiction and power to do so is vested by these provisions exclusively in the appropriate Government. I am, therefore, of the view that, even though Section 4, as amended, confers power upon the Collector to issue a notification under Section 4, the context and other provisions of the Land Acquisition Act clearly negative any implied power in the Collector under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to cancel or withdraw that notification. In the present case, objections under Section 5-A (1) had been filed by respondents nos. 3 to 5 and, originally, the Collector had submitted his report under Section 5-A (2) to the State Government and the State Government had issued that notification under Section 6 (1). After the quashing of that notification on the ground that the objectors had not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, the only legal course open to the Collector was to give the objectors another opportunity of being heard and to submit his report under Section 5-A (2) together with his recommendations to the State Government. It was not open to him to finally decide that the objections were well founded and that the acquisition proceedings should be given up. That decision only be taken by the State Government. The decision of the Collector that the objections were well founded and the consequent order or notification dropping the acquisition proceedings or withdrawing the notification made under Section 4 were outside the Collector's powers. The impugned notification being beyond the Collector's powers under the Land Acquisition Act is illegal and liable to be quashed. 9. I accordingly allow this writ petition and quash the notification dated May 29, 1962, made by the Collector withdrawing the acquisition proceedings. In the circumstances of this case, parties will bear their own costs of this petition. Petition allowed.