JUDGMENT Tripathi, J. - This writ petition is directed against a notification dated 6th October, 1962, issued under the signature of the Collector, Muzaffarnagar, proposing to acquire 3144 sq. yards of land in plot No. 815 in the city of Muzaffarnagar, and also against Government notification dated Lucknow, October 26, 1967, published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act directing the Collector, Muzaffarnagar, to take order under Section 7 of the said Act for the acquisition of the said land. 2. The facts, which are relevant to the question in controversy, are these. 3. Petitioner is the owner of the land in question which forms part of the compound of a residential bungalow known as Anand Bhawan at Roorkee Road, in the city of Muzaffarnagar. On October 6, 1962, the Collector, Muzaffarnagar, issued a notification (annexure 'A' to the Writ petition) under sub-sec. (1) of Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire 3144 sq. yard; of land out of plot No. 815 for the District Eye Relief Society, Muzaffarnagar, for the construction of a building for Muzaffarnagar, Eye Hospital, Muzaffarnagar, and invited objections under Section 5-A (1) of the Act. In response to the notification, petitioner raised objections to the acquisition of the land under Section 5-A of the Act within the prescribed period and also examined evidence in support of the same. 4. According to the counter affidavit filed by Sultan Singh, the land acquisition Clerk, Collectorate, Muzaffarnagar, the Collector had sent his report to the State Government after completing his enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in 1963. On 26th October, 1967, Government notification No. XVI-C-1577/1965-Mcd. 4. According to the counter affidavit filed by Sultan Singh, the land acquisition Clerk, Collectorate, Muzaffarnagar, the Collector had sent his report to the State Government after completing his enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in 1963. On 26th October, 1967, Government notification No. XVI-C-1577/1965-Mcd. 'B' was published, the relevant part of which is quoted below: "Now, therefore, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh after considering the report made under Section 5-A of the said Act and the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Committee as provided under Rule 4 (4) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, is pleased to declare under Section 6 of the said Act that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the Schedule is needed for the construction of Hospital building of Muzaffarnagar Eye Hospital (Now Nehru Eye Hospital) Muzaffarnagar which is a company within the meaning of Section 3 (e) of the said Act and under Section 7 of the said Act to direct the Collector of Muzaffarnagar to take order for the acquisition of the said land:" Mr. S. C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the validity off the Government notification dated 26th October, 1967, on a variety of grounds. It is urged that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, which are mandatory in character, have not been complied with, that no enquiry was held, as required under Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules and there was neither any report of the Collector, Muzaffarnagar, as envisaged under that rule nor any such report was considered by the State Government before issuing the impugned notification 5. Learned counsel contends that the notification under Section 6 of the Act clearly shows that the State Government only considered the report of the Collector submitted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and a report. from the Land Acquisition Committee, but it does not mention that there was a consultation with that Committee within the meaning of the aforesaid Rules. It is urged that there is nothing on the record to show that any enquiry was held within the meaning of Rule 4 (2) of the aforesaid Rules after giving notice to the petitioner. from the Land Acquisition Committee, but it does not mention that there was a consultation with that Committee within the meaning of the aforesaid Rules. It is urged that there is nothing on the record to show that any enquiry was held within the meaning of Rule 4 (2) of the aforesaid Rules after giving notice to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, who appeared for the respondent No. 4, and the Standing Counsel appearing for other respondents, have urged that the provisions of Rule 4 have been substantially complied with, that Annexure 'C' to the counter affidavit of Sultan Singh is the report submitted by the Collector to the Government in pursuance of Rule 4 and in the circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable that it must have beer. considered by the Government before issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act. Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 reads: "4. Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain matters before initiating acquisition proceedings : (1) Whenever a Company makes an application to the appropriate Government for acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the Collector to submit a report to it on the following matters, namely : (i) that the company has made its best endeavour to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of the acquisition; (ii) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed; (iii) that the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose; (iv) that the area of land proposed to be acquired is not excessive; (v) that the company is in a position to utilise the land expeditiously; and (vi) where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of that land. 2. 2. the Collector shall, after giving the company a reasonable opportunity, to make any representation in this behalf hold an enquiry into the matters referred to in sub-rule (1) and while holding such enquiry he shall : (i) in any case where the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural land, consult the Senior Agricultural Officer of the district whether or not such land is good agricultural land; (ii) determine, having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to be payable in respect of the land which, in the opinion of the collector, should be acquired for the company; and (iii) ascertain whether the company offered a reasonable price (not being less than the compensation so determined) to the persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired. Explanation :-for the purpose of this rule "good agricultural land" means any land which, considering the level of agricultural production and the crop pattern of the area in which it is situated, is of average or above average productivity and includes a garden or grove land. 3. As soon as may be after holding the enquiry under sub-rule (2), the Collector shill submit a report to the appropriate Government and a copy of ,.he same shall be forwarded by that Government to the Committee. 4. No declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under Section 6 of the Act unless : (i) the appropriate Government has consulted the Committee and has considered the report submitted under this rule and the report, if any submitted under Section 5 A of the Act; and (ii) the agreement under Section 41 of the Act has been executed by the company." Sub-rule (4) prohibits the appropriate Government from making any declaration under Section 6 of the Act unless it has consulted the committee and has considered the report submitted under this rule and the report, if any submitted under Section 5-A of the Act. In other words, before exercising its power to make a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the appropriate Government has to consult the land Acquisition Committee and has to consider the report submitted by the Collector under rule 4 and the report; if any, submitted under Section 5-A of the Act. 6. In other words, before exercising its power to make a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the appropriate Government has to consult the land Acquisition Committee and has to consider the report submitted by the Collector under rule 4 and the report; if any, submitted under Section 5-A of the Act. 6. The impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act indicates that it was issued by the Governor "after considering the report made under Section 5-A of the said Act and the report submitted by the land Acquisition Committee as provided tinder Rule 4 (4) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963,............." There is no mention in the notification that the Governor had considered any report submitted under Rule 4 by the Collector. Rule 4 does not envisage any report from the Land Acquisition Committee, but it does lay down certain points on which the Government shall direct the Collector to submit a report. The report of the Collector tinder Rule 4 is quite distinct from his report under Section 5-A of the Act. The notification mentions of a report made under Section 5-A of the Act and also of a report submitted by the Land Acquisition Committee, but it (toes not speak of any report from the Collector under Rule 4. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General that as the Collector had submitted a report substantially in pursuance to Rule 4, but has wrongly described it as a supplementary report under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, it must be held that the Government had considered it before issuing the notification. 7. The petitioner has made specific averments in his petition that neither did the State Government require the Collector to submit a report on the matters mentioned in Rule 4 nor there was any such report submitted to the State Government and the State Government did not consider any such report before making the aforesaid notification under Section 6 of the Act. In the counter-affidavit file(" by Srilal Singh on behalf of the State of U. P., these averments made in the petition have neither been denied nor is there any assertion that the State Government had considered a report from the Collector under Rule 4 before issuing the impugned notification. 8. In the counter-affidavit file(" by Srilal Singh on behalf of the State of U. P., these averments made in the petition have neither been denied nor is there any assertion that the State Government had considered a report from the Collector under Rule 4 before issuing the impugned notification. 8. It is true that in the counter affidavit filed by Sultan Singh, Land Acquisition Clerk, Collectorate, Muzaffarnagar, it has been specifically averred that the State Government had asked the Collector to submit his report under Rule 4, that the Collector had submitted that report and that ',before issuing notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government has (lone everything required by Rule 4 (4) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules." It may be mentioned that even in this affidavit, no clear assertion has been made that the State Government had considered a report submitted by the Collector under Rule 4 before issuing the impugned notification. If any such report had been considered by the State Government, it was a matter to be specifically averred in the counter affidavit filed on its behalf, because a clerk working in the Land Acquisition Office at Muzaffarnagar cannot, in the very nature of things, have any such knowledge, I am, therefore, of opinion that the averments made by him on this point must be ignored in the absence of any such assertion in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. 9. In the premises hereinbefore mentioned, it must be held that the State Government issued the notification under Section 6 of the Act without considering the report submitted by the Collector even if any such report had been submitted by him. That being so, the impugned notification had been issued in contravention of Rule 4 (4) of the land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, and is therefore, unsustainable. In this view of the matter, I do not consider it necessary to consider other points raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. The impugned notification No. XVI-C-157711965-Mcd. 'B', dated October 26, 1967, issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed.