P.D. KUDAL, J.—These two company petitions arise out of the same matter and as common questions of law and facts are involved, both these petitions are being disposed of by a single order. 2. The Official Liquidator and M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd., have moved applications under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 for quashing the award and proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate, Jaipur, dated January 30, 1979 in file No. 132/76 for acquisition of all the assets of M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. (In liquidation). 3. By an order dated March 3, 1970 of this Court M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. came under liquidation and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court and was appointed as liquidator. It has been contended by the Official Liquidator that in view of the provisions of Sec. 456 of the Companies Act, 1956, all assets and properties of the company in liquidation vest in the Official Liquidator. The Ex-management of M/s Madhu Industries reported to the Official Liquidator that at the instance of Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur, has passed an award on January 30, 1979 for acquisition of the land of the factory. It was further contended that no notice of the acquisition proceedings was given by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur, to the Official Liquidator. It has been further contended by the Official Liquidator that the permission of this Court should have been obtained in view of the provisions of Sec. 446 of the Companies Act, and as the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur, before passing the award has not obtained permission of this Court the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed and the proceedings initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur, are-illegal and void ab-initio. The Ex-management of M/s Madhu Industries (P)Ltd., further informed the Official Liquidator that the Collector, Jaipur has directed the Tehsildar, Jaipur to hand over possession of the lands of the company to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur and before issuing such orders no intimation of the proposed action was given by the Collector, Jaipur to the Official Liquidator It has been further contended by the Official Liquidator that as prior permission of this court was not obtained by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur before initiating acquisition proceedings, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. The Ex management also reported that the labour belonging to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board have started putting up their material in the premises of M/s Madhu Industries. 4. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, filed reply to the application under sec 446 of the Companies Act filed by the Official Liquidator. It has been conceded by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, that M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. went into liquidation by an order of this court and the property of the company (under liquidation) was auctioned by the Official Liquidator at the instance of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation from whom the company had taken loans. It was further contended that the State Electricity Board was the highest bidder of the auction sale and the bid was accepted. The State Electricity Board deposited Rs. 4,76,000/-. It was also contended that the 25 per cent of the total bid was paid at the time of the auction and the balance was deposited with the High Court at Jodhpur. The Ex-Managing Director of M/s. Madhu Industries moved an application under Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. for setting aside the sale in favour of the State Electricity Board. The Managing Director paid to the decree holder the amount due to the company and also deposited 5 per cent of the purchase money for payment to the purchaser. This court set aside the sale and the State Electricity Board withdrew the amount together with 5 per cent of the purchase money. The State Electricity Board further contended that as considerable time has elapsed the Board thought that the company have settled with the creditors and the property has been released from liquidation. It was further contended by the Electricity Board that it was deprived of the property which the Board urgently required for placing its store and other material. As the existing store did not have enough space, the State Electricity Board moved the State Government for acquiring this land. Under these circumstances, acquisition proceedings were initiated and the State Government issued a notification under section 4 and sec. 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act on May 29, 1978. It was further contended that by another notification dated June 15. 1978, the description of the area sought to be acquired was corrected. Under these circumstances, acquisition proceedings were initiated and the State Government issued a notification under section 4 and sec. 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act on May 29, 1978. It was further contended that by another notification dated June 15. 1978, the description of the area sought to be acquired was corrected. It was further contended that a notice was published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated November 8, 1978 to all interested persons to file their claims to the Land Acquisition Officer by November 25, 1978. Thereafter, the matter was enquired into by the Land Acquisition Officer and an award was issued on January 30, 1979 The award was for a sum of Rs. 4, 99, 275. 17. This amount was deposited by the State Electricity Board and the respondent came into possession of the land and the material and stores belonging to the (State Electricity Board are lying in the land in dispute. It was further contended by the State Electricity Board that the notices issued in Rajasthan Gazette on June 8, 1978 and June 29, 1978 and the Rajasthan Patrika dated November 8, 1978, are public notices meant for all concerned including the Official Liquidator. It was further contended that the Official Liquidator, if he had any interest in the property should have taken notice of the public notice and should have objected to the proceedings carried on before the Land Acquisition Officer. It has been further contended that the Ex-management of the Official Liquidator should be deemed to have been informed through these public notices. It was further contended that the ex-management and the Official Liquidator are now estopped from raising objections against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It was also contended that through this auction the property has fetched much more value than it could have ordinarily fetched and as such, the Official Liquidator or the ex-management has not been put to any loss. It was also contended by the State Electricity Board that the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Office are not covered, under section 446 of the Companies Act and, even if, for arguments sake if they are covered, then an irregularity may now be regularised and the Court may now be pleaded to accord sanction with regard to the proceedings taken by the State Government and the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur. 5. 5. Replies were also filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, the Collector, Jaipur, the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur and the Tehsildar, Jaipur. It has been contended by them that it was not within their knowledge that M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. was under liquidation. It has been further contended that the non-petitioners were not aware that the property in dispute belonged to the petitioner, and hence, no notice was given to the Official Liquidator and M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. It was also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur was to give notice of the acquisition proceedings to the registered owner of the land in dispute only. If M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd, or on their behalf the Official Liquidator was the owner of the property in dispute they should have presented their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur. It was further contended that as they have failed to do so they are not entitled to agitate the matter before this Court. It was further contended that the non-petitioners have not initiated any acquisition proceedings of the land belonging to the petitioner or to M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. The acquisition proceedings were drawn in respect of the property which does not stand in the name of the petitioner and M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. It was also contended that the Tehsildar, Jaipur was ordered to take possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 54 to 60, 207 and 208 of Village Sodlaal (Jaipur) from Kha-tedar Seth Gopal Nath, Shri Durgalal, Shri Saduram and Shri Daulat Chand. As the land in dispute was not entered in the name of M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. the non-petitioners were justified in taking recourse to acquisition proceedings. It was further contended that as no award has been granted in respect of assets of M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd., the question of taking prior permission of the High Court under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not arise at all. It was further contended by the non-petitioners that the Tehsildar, Jaipur, has taken in possession the land in dispute and a possession memo was prepared which bears the signatures of Shri Durgalal, Shri Sadu Ram, Shri Daulat Ram and Shri Nathu Singh, Chowkidar, has signed on behalf of Gopal Nath. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board officials and the local Patwari also signed the memo. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board officials and the local Patwari also signed the memo. It was also contended that no resistance was put up by any-body including the Chowkidar. It was also contended by the non-petitioners that after taking over the possession, the State Electricity Board has a right to use the land in dispute. It was also contended that as the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur are quasi judicial in nature, the publication of the notice in the Rajasthan State Gazette should be deemed as sufficient notice to the Official Liquidator. 6. It was further contended by the non-Petitioners that on the request of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board notice to acquire land bearing Khasra Nos. 54 to 60, 207 and 208 measuring 7 bighas 19 biswas of Village Sodala, Jaipur was published as required by law. There-after another notice was issued inviting claims of the beneficiaries having interest in the dispute. After full proceedings an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur on January 30, 1979. No reference against this award has been made by any of the beneficiears and hence they are estopped from taking any proceedings before this court. It was also contended that in view of the circumstances of the case the application by the Official Liquidator is not maintainable. It was further prayed that the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur could not be quashed. 7. The official Liquidator has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the non-petitioners. It has been contended by the Official Liquidator that the non-petitioners were fully aware that the property in dispute belonged to M/s. Madhu Industries (Pvt.) Ltd (in liquidation), and that the assets of the said company being under liquidation were under the charge of the Official Liquidator. It was further contended that the non-petitioners have failed to notice that the land in dispute is not agricultural land and that it belongs to the company M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. and is an industrial land. It was further contended that the non-petitioners have not seen their own record before filing the reply. It was further contended that the winding up of the aforesaid company was widely published and was also published in the Official Gazette of the Rajasthan State dated March 3, 1970. It was further contended that the non-petitioners have not seen their own record before filing the reply. It was further contended that the winding up of the aforesaid company was widely published and was also published in the Official Gazette of the Rajasthan State dated March 3, 1970. The State and the other non-petitioners should be presumed to have knowledge of the Gazette dated March 3, 1970. 8. It was further contended that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board had the full knowledge of the said order because they had taken part in the auction sale of the assets of M/s. Madhu Industries and the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was the highest bidder. The sale was cancelled by this Court on the petition of the company. It was further contended that Sec. 446 of the Companies Act is mandatory in character and admits no exception. The State or the Land Acquisition Officer could not have taken any proceedings against the company in liquidation without prior leave of this Court. It was also contended that without prior permission of this Court the possession of the land could not be handed over to any body. 9. By an application dated 13th January, 1981 the State has prayed for ex-post facto leave to initiate acquisition proceedings. This application for ex-post facto leave has been opposed by the ex-management and the Official Liquidator. 10. Annexure- A dated May 29, 1978 is the notification under section-4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. Annexeure-13 dated June 15, 1978 is the correction in Annexure- A. 11. Annexure-C dated November 8, 1978 is the notice inviting objections. Annexure-D dated February 9, 1979 is the notice to the beneficiaries under section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. A copy of the award dated 30th January 1979 has also been placed on record R-l is the copy of the Zama bandi in the name of Gopal Nath and Durga Lal. R-2 is the memo of possession dated September 4, 1979. 12. On behalf of M/S Madhu industries it has been contended that Shri Gopal Nathani purchased agricultural land bearing khasra Nos.50 to 60, 207 and 208 situated at Gram Sodala from Sadu Ram Dault Ram by a registered sale-deed dated June, 6, 1970. The land was surrendered to the State Government for conversion from agricultural land to industrial land. 12. On behalf of M/S Madhu industries it has been contended that Shri Gopal Nathani purchased agricultural land bearing khasra Nos.50 to 60, 207 and 208 situated at Gram Sodala from Sadu Ram Dault Ram by a registered sale-deed dated June, 6, 1970. The land was surrendered to the State Government for conversion from agricultural land to industrial land. The Government after conversion of the land in industrial land granted a registered perpetual lease to M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. on 9th April 1962. The lease deed was registered on February 16, 1962. M/s. Madhu Industries with the help of Rajasthan Financial Corporation and share money started functioning but incurred heavy losses, The business had to be closed. The Rajasthan Financial Corporation obtained a decree for Rs. 2 65,000/- on 23rd September 1967. The Indian Oil Corporation obtained an ex-parte winding up order on March 3, 1970 and the Official Liquidator was appointed by this Court. The winding up order was published in the Official Gazette and in all India papers including local papers. The assets of the company were sold at the instance of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation by the Company Court. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board made highest bid for Rs 4,76,000/- on the spot on March 31, 1976. On a petition being moved by the ex-management of M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd., the sale was set aside. The State Government and the State Electricity Board had full knowledge about these liquidation proceedings. It was also contended that even the order of the Land Acquisition Officer that land belonged to M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd., it is a matter of great surprise that the State Government and the State Electricity Board had the audacity to make such a submission against record. 13. It was further contended on behalf of M/s Madhu Industries that the replies filed by the non-petitioners are contradictory to each other and are against the award. It was also contended that the notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is bad as it is vague and does not mention the name of M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. On behalf of the company reliance has been placed on Narendrajit Singh vs. the State of U.P. (1). The Commi. It was also contended that the notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is bad as it is vague and does not mention the name of M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. On behalf of the company reliance has been placed on Narendrajit Singh vs. the State of U.P. (1). The Commi. of Wealth Tax vs. M/s. Kundanlal Behari Lal (2), Bhama Rama Moorti vs. The State of Tamil Nadu(3) (Kochu Mahomed Asan Tharangan vs. Sankardinga Mudaliar(4) and Vallabhaneri Parandamayya vs. Kosarju Surayya (5). 14. On behalf of the Rajasihan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to "As the Board"), it has been contended that land in dispute is situated at Hawa Sadak and is adjoining to the existing stores of the Board. The existing store does not have enough space where necessary material for construction purposes can be stored. It was further contended that the land in question was sold at the instance of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and the Board had purchased it for a sum of Rs. 4, 76, 000/-. That sale was set aside on the application filed by the Ex-management and the Board requested the State Government to acquire the land for the Board. It was also contended that the notice under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was served on Shri Durga Lal and it was published in the Rajasthan Gazette also. Shri Durga Lal filed Vakalatnama on July 14, 1978 and also filed objections on August 13, 1978. The notice could not be served on Gopal Lal despite the best efforts made by the Tehsildar and, hence the notice was pasted on the factory on July 30, 1978. The assessment of the land in question was made at Rs. 3, 59, 000/- against which Bhonri Lal raised objections Sadhu Ram and Daulat Ram also filed objections. The Land Acquisition Officer considered these objections and after taken into consideration the various factors passed an award on January 30, 1979 It has been further contended that the Board has deposited the amount of Rs. 4,99,275 in the officer of the Land Acquisition Officer for distribution to the original claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer considered these objections and after taken into consideration the various factors passed an award on January 30, 1979 It has been further contended that the Board has deposited the amount of Rs. 4,99,275 in the officer of the Land Acquisition Officer for distribution to the original claimants. It was further contended that the notice issued by the State Government was published in the Rajasthan Gazette and Rajasthan Patrika and the notice issued by the Tehsildar was served upon the parties concerned and was also pasted at the factory should be deemed to be sufficient to all concerned including the Official Liquidator. It was also contended that the all persons should have presumed to have taken notice of the notice published in the Rajasthan Patrika and in the Rajasthan Gazette. It was also contended that the Official Liquidator is now estopped by his own conduct from raising objection before this Court. It was also contended that the application moved under section 446 of the Companies Act is not maintainable Reliance was placed on The Star Engineering Works Ltd. v. The Official Liquidator of the Krishana-kumar Mills Company Ltd. and others: 1977 Company Cases 30 It was also contended on behalf of the Board that Section 446 of the Companies Act has now no applicability. It was also contended that since the use in Sec. 446 is ejusdem generis to the word "suit". In this section the suit is the generis and proceedings only spades and so the proceedings should be of the nature of the suit. It was further contended that the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer are not civil proceedings and are not in any way similar to or appear in resemblance to a civil suit or proceedings in a civil court. It was also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has a special jurisdiction and, at this belated stage, the Official Liquidator cannot be allowed to raise objections. Reliance was placed on V.M. Deshpande vs. V. S. Kondaskar (Official Liquidator){6) Official Liquidator, Swaraj Motors (P) Ltd., (in liqn.) vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle (7;. 15. It was also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has a special jurisdiction and, at this belated stage, the Official Liquidator cannot be allowed to raise objections. Reliance was placed on V.M. Deshpande vs. V. S. Kondaskar (Official Liquidator){6) Official Liquidator, Swaraj Motors (P) Ltd., (in liqn.) vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle (7;. 15. On the basis of these rulings it was contended that the Company court has no jurisdiction to acquire the land at the instance of a corporation or the Government and since the Land Acquisition Officer alone has the jurisdiction, it is submitted that no sanction of the Court is necessary. Reliance was placed on Joshi Trading Co. (P). Ltd. V. Essa Ismail Sait (8): wherein it was held that no sanction of the Company Court is necessary in a case which cannot be tried by the Company Judge under the law. Reliance was also placed on Smt. Bhagwati Devi Bubna V. Dhanraj Mills Private Ltd (9). 16. In the alternative it was contended that even if sanction was necessary then the Board has to apply for ex-post facto sanction and the sanction may now be granted. 17. It was further contended that the Official Liquidator like all other persons is a public man residing in the State of Rajasthan. A notice published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra and in Local newspapers is sufficient information to the Official Liquidator as well as to all other persons. It was contended that no individual notice was necessary to be given to the Official Liquidator. It was also contended that the Official Liquidator does not enjoy any special status better than an ordinary man. It was also contended that there cannot be different standards and different sets of law for an official and non-official It was also contended that even if notice was necessary to be served on the Official Liquidator and it was not served then the only remedy available to the Official Liquidator was to file a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and not an application under section 446 of the Companies Act. It was also contended that the two jurisdictions conferred on the High Court; one under Article 226 of the Constitution and the other under section 446 of the Companies Act are distinct and separate and cannot be inter-miggled. 18. It was also contended that the two jurisdictions conferred on the High Court; one under Article 226 of the Constitution and the other under section 446 of the Companies Act are distinct and separate and cannot be inter-miggled. 18. On behalf of the Official Liquidator it was contended that M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. (In liquidation) (hereinafter called the Company) is the owner of a factory in Sodala, Jaipur. The company went into liquidation and a winding up order was made on March 3, 1970; and that, since then the assets of the company including the land in dispute are under the jurisdiction of the Official Liquidator. It was further contended that after the winding up order was made no suit or other legal proceedings could be taken against the companys assets and property without the leave of the Company Court under section 446 (2) of the Companies Act. It was further contended that the winding up orders of the company was published in all newspapers of India vide circulation and local Rajasthan Patrika as well as the Official Gazette of the State of Rajasthan. It was also contended that the publication in all these papers and in the Rajasthan Gazette was notice to all concerned. It was also contended that the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaipur, dated January 30, 1979 discloses that the land in dispute belonged to Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. It was further contended that it was simply surprising that the Land Acquisition Officer and the State Electricity Board now contend that they had no notice. It was further contended that this is wholly against the established facts. The land in dispute was previously auctioned and the State Electricity Board purchased the same for Rs. 4. 76. 000/-. On the application by the Ex-management of M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd., this auction was cancelled. It is simply surprising how the State Electricity Board, in face of these facts, now contend that the Board had no notice that the land in dispute was under the control of the Official Liquidator. Even in the award dated January 30, 1979, the land in dispute has been shown as one belonging to M/s. Madhu Industries. It is simply surprising how the State Electricity Board, in face of these facts, now contend that the Board had no notice that the land in dispute was under the control of the Official Liquidator. Even in the award dated January 30, 1979, the land in dispute has been shown as one belonging to M/s. Madhu Industries. It was further contended that the non-petitioners No. 1 to 4 have admitted that no notice has been given to the Official Liquidator and M/s. Madhu Industries (P) Ltd., that the property of the company (in liquidation) was auctioned by the Official Liquidator at the instance of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation from whom the company had taken loan. Rajasthan State Electricity Board was the highest bidder at the auction sale and deposited Rs 4,76.000/-. It was further contended that this sale was set aside and the Board and Rajasthan State Electricity Board withdrew the amount together with 5% of the purchase money and the matter rested there at that time since nothing was heard at that time and since the payment was already made to the Rajasthan Finance Corporation the non-petitioner No. 5, was under a bonafide belief that the Company had settled with the creditors and that the property was released from liquidation. 19. It was also contended that proceedings for acquisition of the land are initiated by publication of an order in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) of section 45 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. It was further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has to carry out the duties laid down in clauses (a) to (g) of section 4 of the Act. Under clause (g) the authorised officer is required to enquire into AND ascertain the particulars of the persons interest in the land proposed to be acquired under subsection (4) of section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector is bound to give notice in the prescribed form of the proposed acquisition to all persons reported under clause (g) of sub-section (3) to be interested in the land proposed for acquisition under the clause. The Collector is bound to give notice in the prescribed form of the proposed acquisition to all persons reported under clause (g) of sub-section (3) to be interested in the land proposed for acquisition under the clause. It was further contended that the object of such a notice is to enable the persons interested in the land intended to be acquired to raise objections against the proposed acquisition The objections are to be made in writing and submitted before the Collector who is bound to hear the objections as provided in section 5A of the Act. It was further contended that section 45 of the Act lays down the procedure for effecting service of notices under the Act. Subsection (1) of section 45 speaks about the delivery of a copy of the notice. Subsection (2) says that wherever it may be practicable, the service of notice shall be made on the person named therein. Sub-section (3) provides the manner of service of notice when such persons cannot be found, service may be made on any adult male member of his family and if he is not found it may be served by fixing a copy of the notice on the outer door of his house and by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the Collector and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired It was further contended that sub-section (4) of section 45 provides for the service of a public notice required to be given under this Act. It may be affixed on the notice board of the office of such officer and the copies thereof are to be affixed on the notice board of the Tehsil concerned Non-compliance or the failure to serve notice as provided under the aforesaid provisions vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. In the present case, no notice was served or even issued to the Official Liquidator. In the present case, no notice was served or even issued to the Official Liquidator. Reliance was placed on the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidamba Ram V. A.N. Damodara Mudaliar (10) wherein it has been held that, Natural Justice requires that any notice to be effective and to be positive should have been served on the person against whom it is intended and without proof of such actual service, a bare inference of constructive knowledge of the obligation to prefer the claim within 15 days from the date of the notice, ought not to be pressed into service to the prejudice of the affected party. 20. Reliance was also placed on M/s. Rajasthan Udyog vs. State of Rajas-than (11) wherein it has been held that if no notice is given to the owner of the land or the person interested, acquisition proceedings are vitiated. In the instant case admittedly no notice was given to the Official Liquidator to represent his case before the Collector at any stage of the proceedings. It is the elementary requirement of law that opportunity of hearing must be given. 21. Reliance was also placed on Narinderjit Singh v. The State of UP. (12) and State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib (13) wherein it has been held that with the above background we have to consider the scope of section 4 (1), under certain circumstances publication in the Official Gazette are presumed to be notice to all concerned. In Narinderjit Singhs case (supra), it has been held that, the law as settled by this Court is that such a notice under second part of section 4 (1) is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. 22. It was further contended that in the present case it is admitted that no notice in accordance with the provisions contained in section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was given to the Official Liquidator. Hence all the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated as the Official Liquidator was the persons interested in the land of M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. It was further contended that the Official Liquidator has been deprived of his fundamental and valuable right to represent his case before the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence all the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated as the Official Liquidator was the persons interested in the land of M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd. It was further contended that the Official Liquidator has been deprived of his fundamental and valuable right to represent his case before the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer. The file of the Land Acquisition Officer reveals that no enquiry was made about the persons interested in the land in question. The authorised officer did not ascertain the particulars of person interested as required by clause (g) of sub section (1) of section 4. Rules have also been framed under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act The relevant rules are rules 3 and 3-A. Order u/s 4(i) is to be in form 1 and notice under clause (1) of sub-section-5 of section 4 must in Form 1 A. Thus a detailed procedure for issue publication and service of notice has been laid down under the Act. The main purpose is to intimate the persons interested in land to represent their case against the proposed acquisition. It was further contend that as the company was in liquidation and its assets and property are under the control and custody of the High Court through the Official Liquidator, leave u/s 446 of the Companies Act was necessary for takingh acquisition proceedings and admittedly no such leave was obtained by the non-petitioners. The non-petitioners have relied on AIR 1972 S.C. 878 . In paragra.ph-8 of this judgment it has been held as under :- "The liquidation court would have full powers to scrutinise the claim of the revenue after income-tax has been determined and its payment demanded from the liquidator. It would be open to the Liquidating Court then to decide how far under the law the amount of Income-tax determined by the department should be accepted as a lawful liability on the funds of the company in liquidation. At that stage the winding up court can fully safe-guard the interests of the Company and its creditors under the Act." 23. It was contended that the winding up court has full powers and jurisdiction in dealing under such circumstances. It was further contended that the present case is different and distinguishable from the income-tax proceedings on which the State Electricity Board has placed reliance. 24. It was contended that the winding up court has full powers and jurisdiction in dealing under such circumstances. It was further contended that the present case is different and distinguishable from the income-tax proceedings on which the State Electricity Board has placed reliance. 24. Reliance was also placed on Governor General in Council v. Shiromani Sugar Mills Ltd. (14) wherein it has been held that the expression or other legal proceedings in sec. 171 need not, and therefore, should not, be confined to original proceedings in a court of first instance, analogous to a suit instituted by means of a petition similar to a plaint. Section 171 must be construed with reference to other sections of the Act and the general scheme of administration of the assets of a Company in liquidation laid down by the Act. It was further held that clearly action under section 46 of the Income-tax Act is not a proceeding in an ordinary Court of law. But there is no reason why in British India no legal proceeding can be taken otherwise than in an ordinary court of law, or why a proceeding taken elsewhere than in an ordinary court of law, provided it be taken in a manner prescribed by law and in pursuance of law legal enactment cannot properly be described as a legal proceedings. It was held that leave of the Honble Court was necessary for assessment of Income-tax. 25. It was further contended that the fact that the Company in liquidation was ordered to be wound up by the High Court by its order dated March 3,1970 The notification was published in the Official Gazette and other newspapers which gave enough opportunity to the public in rem to know that the assets of the company now vest in the Official Liquidator. Since the Official Liquidator was in full control of the property of the Company (in liquidation) and the same was in his possession; any interference with the property in question belonging the company in liquidation by any authority or person including the State Government in any manner under the control and custody and possession of the Official Liquidator constitute serious contempt of Court. Reliance placed on AIR 1958 Punjab 441. 26. Reliance placed on AIR 1958 Punjab 441. 26. It was further contended on behalf of the Official Liquidator that regarding the prayer of the non-petitioners for granting ex-post facto sanction it is submitted that the leave of Court could not be granted as a matter of course or merely for asking. It was further contended that the facts and circumstances have to be examined in each case. The discretion has to be exercised judicially. The interests of the company have to be safeguarded; the interests of the creditors are also to be protected. It was further contended that the non-petitioners have not come with clean hands and they have concealed truth from the Company Court. It was further contended that in their action in taking acquisition proceedings is actuated by malafides. It was further contended that the award dated January 30, 1979, makes reference to M/s Madhu Industries (P) Ltd., yet the non-petitioners had the audacity to say that they did not know that the land vested in the Official Liquidator. It was further contended that the non-petitioner No 5 is not competent to apply for leave as he is not the acquiring authority i.e. the State Government. More over, this non-petitioner knew fully well the fact of passing the winding up order of the Company being in liquidation and persuaded the State Government to acquire the land of the Company in liquidation without the leave of the Company Court At the time when acquisition proceedings were initiated at the request of the State Electricity Board, the Electricity Board was fully aware of the fact that the Official Liquidator was in-charge of the land. It was further contended that the non-petitioner had least respect for truth. It was also contended that they have tried to interfere with the possesion of the Official Liquidator and thus challenged the authority of the Company Court. Under these circumstances, it was contended that sanction under section 446 of the Companies Act cannot be granted to these persons who break law and take action which amounts to serious contempt of Court. 27. Under these circumstances, it was contended that sanction under section 446 of the Companies Act cannot be granted to these persons who break law and take action which amounts to serious contempt of Court. 27. Having given my most anxious consideation to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and to the facts on second I have no hesitation in holding that the State Electricity Board had full knowledge of the winding up order and also fully knew that the land in question belongs to the Company (in liquidation.) The sale which was conducted by the Official Liquidator at the request of the Financial Corporation was set aside at the request of the ex-management of the Company. In these sale proceedings the highest bid of the State Electricity Board was accepted. The State Electricity Board deposited Rs. 4,76,000/- and when the sale was set aside the State Electricity Board withdrew the said amount and also withdrew 5% of the purchase money consequent upon the cancellation of the sale. At the time when the State Electricity Board made a request to the State Govt. to acquire the land it was the duty of the State Electricity Board to have droughts these facts to the notice of the State Government. The most surprising fact is that the Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated January 30, 1979 described the land belonging to M/s Madhu Industries. In the reply the non-petitioners have taken total restraint which is contrary to facts on record. To say the least such facts should not have been suppressed by the non-petitoners. The only inference in such circumstances is that the non-petitioners have scant regard for truth and, that they were bent upon for acquiring this land as the land might be urgently needed by the Board. It is a matter of serious concern that the land in control and custody of the High Court should have been so dealt with by the non-petitioners As long time has passed it does not appear reasonable initiate proceedings for contempt of Court against the non-petitioners. However, by their conduct, the non-petitioners have disentitled themselves for any indulgence being done to them under section 446 of the Companies Act in granting ex-post facto sanction. 28. However, by their conduct, the non-petitioners have disentitled themselves for any indulgence being done to them under section 446 of the Companies Act in granting ex-post facto sanction. 28. The land acquisition proceedings being under a State law cannot, in any circumstances, over-ride the provisions of a Central Act, i.e. the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The Constitution of India makes a mandatory provision under Article 254 of the Constitution. The acquisition proceedings are quasi judicial and determine the claims of the various interested persons including the compensation payable. These proceedings cannot by any stretch of imagination be excluded from proceedings under section 445 of the Companies Act. 29. Under these circumstances, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 30th January, 1979 being absolutely void, without jurisdiction and in serious contempt of the orders of this court is hereby quashed The State Electricity Board is hereby directed to vacate the land in dispute and remove whatever stock of material they have placed on the land in dispute. If the State Electricity Board does not remove entire material and the stores from the land in dispute, the Official Liquidator shall bring this fact to the notice of the court upon which necessary steps would be taken and such directions or proceedings shall be initiated against the non-petitioners which are available and permissible under the law. 30. As the non-petitioners contested this petition unnecessarily and without any justification the petitioner would be entitled to costs from the non-petitioners.