JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, J.:--These two special civil applications can be disposed of by a common judgment as the facts and the points arising therein are identical. It will be enough to refer to the facts of Special Civil Application No. 3224 of 1975 in details. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the lands. These lands were sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the benefit of the respondent No. 4 Shree Dudh Ganga Ved-Ganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "the Karkhana. Inquiry under section 5-A was held in which the petitioner protested against the acquisition of the land on the ground that the land was his only source of livelihood and as such acquisition thereof would affect him adversely. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3224 of 1975 holds in all 4 acres and 22 gunthas out of which 1½ acres was sought to be acquired, while petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 3293 of 1975 holds in all 1 acres and 26 gunthas out of which 35 gunthas are sought to be acquired. In the inquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, finding seems to have been recorded against the petitioners. Ultimately section 6 notification was issued on 14-9-1967. In due course inquiry under section 9 was held and award was passed on 27-12-1974. 3. In the meanwhile inquiry under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, was commenced against the Karkhana itself and by an order dated 27-2-1971 the Karkhana was found to be a surplus holder to the extent of 12 acres and 27 gunthas. Even before this order was passed under section 20 of the Ceiling Act, the Karkhana seems to have made an application to the Government on 14-10-1966 for granting exemption to the land held by it as also the land sought to be acquired for it, under section 47(1)(k) of the Ceilings Act. The said application was granted on 27-6-1975 and the lands already in possession of the Karkhana and the land sought to be acquired were exempted from the operation of the Ceilings Act. It may be noted that in all 111 acres and 1 gunthas of land from this village Bidri were sought to be acquired by the Government for the benefit of this Karkhana in view of the contemplated expansion of its industrial activity. 4. It may be noted that in all 111 acres and 1 gunthas of land from this village Bidri were sought to be acquired by the Government for the benefit of this Karkhana in view of the contemplated expansion of its industrial activity. 4. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution Petitioners challenge the validity of the notification dated 27-6-1975. 5. The petitioners no doubt raised several other questions, Dr. B.R. Naik, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, however made it clear that he was challenging only the validity of the notification dated 27-6-1975 issued under section 47(1)(k) of the Ceilings Act. His contention is firstly that the Government did not apply its mind to the requirements of the said section and the Government did not consider what the holdings of they Karkhana were and what the holdings of the petitioners were, from whom the lands were being acquired and included in the contemplated notification under section 47(1)(k). Dr. Naik contends that no such notification could have been issued by the Government without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to demonstrate how acquisition of their lands as also exempting the same from the Ceilings Act was proper. 6. Now, the notification published in the Gazette dated 10-7-1975 itself does not indicate whether the Government had applied its mind to the holdings either of the Karkhana or the petitioners. Notwithstanding the averments made in the petition that Government had not applied its mind to these requirements, no affidavit is filed on behalf of the Government indicating that in fact some material was in possession of the Government having a bearing on this point and the Government had considered the same before the exemption under section 47(1)(k) was granted to the lands sought to be acquired. However, affidavit on behalf of the Karkhana shows that correspondence was going on between the Government and the Karkhana in regard to the exemption of these lands from 14-10-1966 and in compliance with queries and requisitions made from time to time, the necessary material was supplied by the Karkhana to the Government for enabling it to grant the exemption asked for. This apart, section 47(1)(K) contemplates exempting the lands held by the Karkhana for agricultural and industrial use, as also the land intended to be acquired for its such industrial activities. This apart, section 47(1)(K) contemplates exempting the lands held by the Karkhana for agricultural and industrial use, as also the land intended to be acquired for its such industrial activities. It will only be reasonable to assume that the entire material in regard to the acquisition proceeding including the material collected or placed on record in the course of inquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act also must have been with the Government before the actual order exempting the lands was passed under section 47(1)(k) of the Act. As discussed earlier, petitioners have no doubt stated on oath that no such material was with the Government and that Government has not applied its mind to these question as required under section 47(1)(k) of the Act. We are, however, not prepared to attach much importance to this statement on oath made by the petitioners as the petitioners on the face of it can have no access to the Government record. Averments in the petitions do not disclose how the petitioners could have access to the Government record and on what basis they can assert that the Government passed the order without any material or without applying its mind to the same. We find much substance in the contention of Mr. Dhanuka, the learned Advocate appearing for the Karkhana, when he says, that the question as regards the holdings of the petitioners must be deemed to have been considered and concluded when after inquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, section 6 notification was ultimately issued. Government also no doubt has to ensure that the agriculturists are not deprived of their only source of livelihood. However, the Policy in this behalf cannot be said to be no inflexible as to prevent the Government from acquiring the land under no circumstances. This merely is a circumstance which the Government has to take into account before the land is sought to be acquired and notification under section 6 of the Act is finalised. The circumstance that the petitioners did not seek to challenge the said notification under section 6 from 14-9-1967 till these writ petitions were filed on 28-11-1975 and 6-12-1975, speaks volumes against the validity of their claim. An area of 111 acres and 1 gunthas has been acquired for the benefit of the Karkhana. The circumstance that the petitioners did not seek to challenge the said notification under section 6 from 14-9-1967 till these writ petitions were filed on 28-11-1975 and 6-12-1975, speaks volumes against the validity of their claim. An area of 111 acres and 1 gunthas has been acquired for the benefit of the Karkhana. Affidavit filed on behalf of the Karkhana shows that about 87 acres of land has already been taken into possession. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to seek to unsettle the notification which not only affects a small area of the land of the petitioners but larger area acquired from several other persons. We were also informed at the Bar that some other applications from the land-holders challenging the acquisition proceedings under section 47(k) notification also have been rejected summarily by this Court. Leave to appeal is rejected by the Supreme Court. In view of these circumstances we do not think that we will be justified in interfering with the notification sought to be challenged in these proceedings. 7. It is true that no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioners before the exemption was granted as requested by the Karkhana. Section 47 itself does not contemplate issuance of such notice. In fact, the proceedings are essentially administrative. It is true that even in administrative proceedings rights of the citizens should not be allowed to be affected without knowing what the contentions of the persons affected are likely to be. The question of giving any notice in the present case loses all its importance once it is borne in mind that a full-fledged inquiry was held under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act before the notification under section 6 was issued. The lands under section 47(k) being those that are intended to be acquired, there was no point in duplicating the process of hearing. In other words, neither the scheme of section 47 contemplates any inquiry or notice to the persons affected thereby, nor the circumstances in the present case warrant such a claim. We do not find any merits in these petition. Rules are accordingly discharged. 8. No orders as to costs. -----