JUDGMENT O.P. Saxena, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3rd December 1984 (Annexure S.A.-3) and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Government Orders dated 27-7-1967 (Annexure 2), 9-4-1980 (Annexure 6) and 16-5-1983 (Annexure 7) and leave out the petitioner's plots from the operation of acquisition proceedings. 2. The petitioner is a registered Co- operative Society with the sole object of acquiring land, developing the same and allotting plots for construction of residences of its members on no profit no loss basis. 3. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 28th April 1979 and was published in the Gazette on 4th June 1979. About 336 bighas land in village Umarpur Neewan and about 195 bighas land in village Harwara, Pargana & Tahsil Chail, District Allahabad, were sought to be acquired for the construction of a Housing Colony by Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran. The notification included petitioner's plots Nos. 810, 814 and 851 in village Umarpur Neewan. 4. The petitioner obtained an agreement of sale dated 30th January 1976 in respect of plot No. 814. Negotiations for the sale of plots Nos. 810 and 851 matured in January 1979. The petitioner obtained a sale deed of plot No. 810 on 23rd June 1979, of plot No. 851 on 16th May 1981 and of plot No. 814 on Ist October 1981. The petitioner submitted a development plan on 27th September 1981. 5. The petitioner as well as other Housing Co-operative Societies filed objections under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 26th May 1981. About 309 bighas land of village Umarpur Neewan and about 133 bighas land of village Harwara were actually acquired. The other land in respect of which objections were filed was not included in the final notification. 7. The following Housing Co-operative Societies also filed objections: - 1. Jan Hitkari Grah Niram Samiti in respect of plots Nos. 152 to 156. 157/1, 158, 159 to 162, 164, 177, 178/1, and 179/1 in village Harwara, acquired vide agreement of sale dated 10th May 1979: 2. Prayag Upnivasan Avas Avam Niram Sahkari Samiti Ltd, in respect of plots Nos. 187, 191 and 192. Jan Hitkari Grah Niram Samiti in respect of plots Nos. 152 to 156. 157/1, 158, 159 to 162, 164, 177, 178/1, and 179/1 in village Harwara, acquired vide agreement of sale dated 10th May 1979: 2. Prayag Upnivasan Avas Avam Niram Sahkari Samiti Ltd, in respect of plots Nos. 187, 191 and 192. in village Harwara, acquired by sale deed dated 26th August 1975 and development plan submitted on Ist Feb.. 1975. 3. Kamzor Varg Avam Karamchari Sahkari Samiti, in respect of plots Nos. 231/2 and 233/2 in village Harwara, acquired by sale deed dated 27th March, 1979 and development. plan submitted on 16th May 1979: and 4. Gokul Awas Yojna under Audit Karamchari Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, in respect of plots Nos. 184 to 186, 195, 196, 198 to 201, 211 and 229 in village Harwara, acquired by sale deed executed between 3rd August 1974 and 2nd March, 1979 and development plan submitted on 21st June 1976. 8. Besides filing objections under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act. the petitioner moved application dated 14-8-1981 (Annexure 5) to the Collector. Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) and claimed exemption of its land. Reliance was placed on Government Orders dated 27-7-1967 (Annexure 2) and 9-4-1980 (Annexure 6). 9. The petitioner sent a layout plan to Mukhya Nagar Avam Gram Niyojak, Lucknow. On 12-3-1981 the latter sent a letter to Secretary. Vikas Pradhikaran. Allahabad, that the layout could not be sanctioned as the land was earmarked for dairy and pasture land in the Master Plan. Copy (Annexure S.A.II) was sent to petitioner. 10. On 21st August 1981, petitioner filed writ petition No. 9776 of 1981, challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Writ Petition No. 10603 of 1981 was filed by one Dina Nath Saxena. Writ Petition No. 10165 of 1981 was filed by one Prithi Nath Kapoor. Some others also filed writ petitions. All the writ petitions were dismissed on 23rd March, 1982, Annexure I is copy of judgment in writ petition No. 10603 of 1982. The leading judgment has been reported in AIR 1982 All 349 . 11. On 30-10-1982, the petitioner moved application (Annexure 8) before the Secretary, Vikas Pradhikaran. Allahabad After the Government Order dated 16-5-1983 (Annexure 7). the petitioner moved another application on 27-10-1983 (Annexure 9). Vikas Pradhikaran. The leading judgment has been reported in AIR 1982 All 349 . 11. On 30-10-1982, the petitioner moved application (Annexure 8) before the Secretary, Vikas Pradhikaran. Allahabad After the Government Order dated 16-5-1983 (Annexure 7). the petitioner moved another application on 27-10-1983 (Annexure 9). Vikas Pradhikaran. Allahabad moved the State Government for modification of Master Plan so as to show the land acquired as one earmarked for residential purposes instead of a dairy and pasture land. Notice inviting objections was published (Annexure S.A.I). On 3-12-1984. Secretary Vikas Pradhikaran,Allahabad, sent letter (Annexure S.A.III) to the petitioner informing him that no exemption could be granted. 12. Petitioner has challenged the refusal of the authorities to grant exemption from acquisition as wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. Its grievance is that whereas other Co-operative Housing Societies have been granted exemption. it has been refused. 13. The respondents contend that they acquired the land for a Housing Colony and they are already making constructions on the land acquired including the petitioners land. They have taken the plea of res judicata. It is said that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the State Government. It is further said that the petitioner is not entitled as constructions have already been made on the disputed land. 14. Affidavits have been exchanged by the parties and on the request of their learned counsel, we are disposing of the petition on merits at the admission stage. 15. Sri J. S. Sengar learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was hostile discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution as the petitioners application for exemption was rejected and the application of the Jan Hitkari Graha Niram Samiti was allowed. He placed reliance on the Government Notifications dated 27-7-1967, 9-4-1980 and 16-5-1983. On the basis of the authority in Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1767 he contended that the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is itself vitiated and the order of exemption in favour of the said Society is non est. 16. Sri A. Mohilay, learned counsel for respondents numbers 1 and 3 submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any exemption as it obtained the sale deeds of the plots after the commencement of the land acquisition proceedings. As far as the hostile discrimination and the validity ,f the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 arc concerned. 16. Sri A. Mohilay, learned counsel for respondents numbers 1 and 3 submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any exemption as it obtained the sale deeds of the plots after the commencement of the land acquisition proceedings. As far as the hostile discrimination and the validity ,f the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 arc concerned. he submitted that the decision in the earlier writ petitions operates as res judicata. 17. Annexure 2. the copy of Government Notification dated 27-7-1967 requires the following pre-conditions before exemption may be granted : 1. That the Co-operative Housing Society is registered body and has been in existence since prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings: 2. that the Cooperative Housing Society has acquired the land prior to the commencement of the land acquisition proceedings: 3. that the Co-operative Housing Society is prepared to get its area developed by the Improvement Trust/Nagar Mahapalika on payment of development charges in advance: 4. that the Cooperative Housing Society owns a compact area and in making allotments of plots after development will not earn profits: 5. that the Housing Society is prepared to execute an agreement and deposit security and ensure full and proper development of its area. and 6. that the Co-operative Housing Society is financially sound. 18. We are unable to accept the contention of Sri J. S. Sengar that the land acquisition proceedings commence with the publication of notification under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. We are of the opinion that the land acquisition proceedings commence with the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, is in fact. a declaration of the intended acquisition. The Government may under Section 17(1) and (1- A) of the Act permit the Collector to take possession during the time specified without undergoing the formalities of a notice under Section 9 or an award. Under Section 234(1) of the Act the compensation is payable at the market value prevalent on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 28-4-1979. The petitioner obtained sale deeds of plots Numbers 810.851 and 814 on 23-6-79, 16-5-1981 and 1-10-1981 respectively The notification under Section 6(1) was published on 26-5-81. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 28-4-1979. The petitioner obtained sale deeds of plots Numbers 810.851 and 814 on 23-6-79, 16-5-1981 and 1-10-1981 respectively The notification under Section 6(1) was published on 26-5-81. It is obvious that the petitioner did not obtain the sale deed of any plot prior to the commencement of acquisition proceedings on 28-4-1979. It in fact obtained the sale deed of plot number 814 after the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. The petitioner was, thus. not entitled to the benefit of the Government Order. 19. In Meera Rani v. State of U.P., 1978 All LJ 32. it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that purchasers of land after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were not entitled to the benefit of the Land Police (Para 7). 20. The petitioner did not move the State Government for granting exemption under Section 48(l) of the Land Acquisition Act or for cancelling the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of its powers under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The petitioner did not even implead the State Government as a respondent in this case. The petitioner gave numerous applications to respondents Nos. 1 and 3 who were not competent to grant an exemption. 21. Section 56 of U.P. Avas Avam Vikas Adhiniyam. 1965 (Act No. 1 of 1966) does not provide for granting exemption from acquisition. It confer powers to acquire and dispose of land by agreements. If the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 did not agree to dispose of the land in favour of the petitioner. the petitioner cannot compel them to do so. 22. Apart from the discrepancy regarding the date on which respondent No. 3 obtained possession over the acquired land the date having been given as 2-1-1982 in para 40 of the counter-affidavit and 1-9-1981 in para 20 of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 4th February 1985. it is not disputed that the respondent No. 3 had obtained possession over the land acquired. 23. State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1593 . B.N. Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, AIR 1975 SC 1767 and Lt. Governor. Himachal Pradesh v. Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576 . it is not disputed that the respondent No. 3 had obtained possession over the land acquired. 23. State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1593 . B.N. Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, AIR 1975 SC 1767 and Lt. Governor. Himachal Pradesh v. Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576 . are authorities in support of the contention that after possession has been taken in pursuance of a notification under S. 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. the land is vested in the Government and the notification cannot be cancelled under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act nor can the notification he withdrawn in exercise of powers under S. 4/8 of the Land Acquisition Act. 24. There is substance in the petitioner's contention that the exemption granted to Jan Hitkari Grah Nirman Samiti was an act of hostile discrimination. The said Samiti had obtained only an agreement of sale on 10-5-1979. It did not obtain any sale deed prior to the commencement of land acquisition proceedings on 28-4-1979. It was not entitled to the benefit of the relevant Government Order. 25. In spite of the aforesaid finding the petitioner is not entitled to a declaration that the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act is void on account of the aforesaid hostile discrimination and favouritism on the basis of the authority of Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1767 (supra) for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner has not impleaded the State Government as a respondent. The notification under Section 6(1) of the Act has been made by the Governor and without hearing the State Government. the notification cannot be declared void. Secondly, the general principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata is applicable. 26. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9776 of 1981 in which the prayer was for quashing the notifications under Sections (1) and 6(1) of the Act. In para 19 of the earlier writ petition there was the plea of hostile discrimination, which was also taken. Besides referring to other plots, there was also a reference to plots numbers 187, 191 and 192 of Prayag Up Niwasan Avam Niram Sahkari Samiti Ltd. These plots have been referred to in para II of the present writ petition. Earlier writ petition was decided on 23-3-1982 and it was dismissed for reasons given in Writ Petitions Nos. Besides referring to other plots, there was also a reference to plots numbers 187, 191 and 192 of Prayag Up Niwasan Avam Niram Sahkari Samiti Ltd. These plots have been referred to in para II of the present writ petition. Earlier writ petition was decided on 23-3-1982 and it was dismissed for reasons given in Writ Petitions Nos. 10603 of 1981, Dina Nath Saxena and 10165 of 1981, Prithvi Nath Kapoor. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is the copy of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 10603 of 1981, Dina Nath Saxena. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court :- "For the reasons given above. we find that the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 are valid." 27. The judgment of Writ Petition No. 10165 of 1981, Prithvi Nath Kapoor. has been reported in AIR 1982 All 349 . In para 24 it was held : - "From the above illustration strictly relied upon. we find that the plea of hostile discrimination made by this petitioner and the petitioners of the other writ petitions has no substance." 28. We are unable to accept the contention that the petitioner could not take the plea of hostile discrimination vis-a-vis Jan Hitkari Graha Nirman Samiti in the earlier writ petition as the land of the petitioner was earmarked in the Master Plan for dairy farming the pasture land, while the land of the Samiti was earmarked for housing. Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 17-1-1985 is a copy of the notification dated 20th July 1983, where by the purpose for which the land of the petitioner was earmarked and other land was changed from dairy farming and pasture land to housing. The notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act show that the entire land was acquired for the purpose of a housing colony. The petitioner itself claimed to have acquired the land for a housing colony. In para 19 of the earlier writ petition the petitioner did take the plea of hostile discrimination vis-a-vis Prayag Up Nivasan Avas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. in respect of plots Nos. 187, 191 and 192, which were also earmarked in the Master Plan for housing. The petitioner itself claimed to have acquired the land for a housing colony. In para 19 of the earlier writ petition the petitioner did take the plea of hostile discrimination vis-a-vis Prayag Up Nivasan Avas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. in respect of plots Nos. 187, 191 and 192, which were also earmarked in the Master Plan for housing. If the petitioner could take such a plea in respect of Prayag Up Nivasan Avas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. there is no justification why it could not take a similar plea in respect of Jan Hitkari Grah Nirman Samiti, whose plots were also earmarked for housing in the Master Plan. 29. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Labour Court, U.P., 1977 Lab IC 1503, it was held by an Hon'ble single Judge of this Court that principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata are applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Special Appeal No. 226 of 1976, Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Labour Court, U.P. was filed against this judgment and it was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 3rd December 1976. 30. Reliance was also placed on case of N.R. Cooprative Credit Society v. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1967 SC 1182 , Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 585 . and Union of India v. Nanak Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1370 . 31. In view of the legal position the decision in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner operates as res judicata as well as constructive res judicata The petitioner cannot pray before this Court that the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act may be quashed on account of hostile discrimination. The petitioner ought to have taken the plea of hostile discrimination vis-a- vis the exemption granted to Janta Hitkari Griha Nirman Samiti and as it did not take this plea in the earlier writ petition, the plea raised in the present writ petition is barred by constructive res judicata. 32. Apart from this the petitioner cannot pray for a declaration that the exemption granted in favour of Janta Hitkari Griha Nirman Samiti is non est as it did not implead the said Samiti and no such declaration can be granted in the absence of the Samiti. 32. Apart from this the petitioner cannot pray for a declaration that the exemption granted in favour of Janta Hitkari Griha Nirman Samiti is non est as it did not implead the said Samiti and no such declaration can be granted in the absence of the Samiti. In the case of Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 1767 (supra), the parties affected had also been impleaded. 33. Respondent No. 3 has obtained possession over the land under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the same vests absolutely in respondent No. 3 free from all incumbrance's. The petitioner has no subsisting interest in the land which has been duly acquired and taken possession of and it cannot pray that the respondents be directed to exempt the land under the various Government Orders referred to earlier. 34. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The stay order is vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs.