R. K. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) SIX petitioners have jointly filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, praying for quashing the impugned notifications (Annexures-3 and 7 respectively to the writ petition) issued under Ss. 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that State of U. P. issued a notification dt/- 7-8-1979 under S. 4 (1) of the Act notifying that plots Nos. 66 Aa, 66ba, 61aa, 61ba 8, 10, 67, 12, 9, 13, 41, 42, 43 and 44 situate in village Khaurashwa, pargana Basti East, Distt. Basti were to be acquired for public purpose, namely to construct a colony under Left Bank, Ghaghra Project. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are Bhumidhars of plot No. 66, measuring 1 Bigha 8 Biswas and 10 Biswansis. Plot No. 61 is a Bhumidhari of the petitioner No. 4 and plot No. 67 is Bhumidhari of petitioners Nos. 5 and 6. It is alleged that a considerable portions of plots Nos. 66 and 61 were covered by residential houses and there was also a small temple in plot No. 66. They filed objections under S. 5a of the Act on the grounds inter alia that they were very poor tenure holders, owned no other property in the village and their houses are also situate in plots Nos. 66 and 61. Therefore, those plots should be exempted from acquisition proceedings. Thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer visited the spot along with the Executive Engineer on 7-3-1980 and found that there were houses and constructions in plots Nos. 13, 41, 44, 61 and 66. Plot No. 66 belongs to petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and plot No. 61 belongs to petitioner No. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer held that those plots in which there were houses and constructions should not be acquired as in the case of acquisition the Government will have to spend a considerable amount towards payment of compensation on account of the building situate thereon. He further held that plot No. 44 belonging to Rajendra Pd. , Surendra Pd. and Surendra Pd. is their entire land, which was proposed to be acquired and in that event they would become landless. On these findings the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2, made recommendation that plots Nos. He further held that plot No. 44 belonging to Rajendra Pd. , Surendra Pd. and Surendra Pd. is their entire land, which was proposed to be acquired and in that event they would become landless. On these findings the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2, made recommendation that plots Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44 and 12 be exempted from acquisition proceedings and the aforesaid notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act with respect to the aforesaid plots be cancelled. A true copy of the report and order passed by him on 9-3-1980 is attached to the writ petition as Annexure-6. ( 3 ) IT is important to note that although the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2, had found at the time of inspection that there were houses over the aforesaid plots Nos. 61 and 66 still in the operative portion of his recommendation he omitted to mention the aforesaid plots from being exempted from acquisition proceedings. On 7-6-1980 a notification dated 2-5-1980 under S. 6 of the Act with regard to plots Nos. 61, 66, 67, 13, 12, 10, 9 and 8 was published by the State Government. A copy of the same is attached to the writ petition as Annexure-VII. On 1-8-1980 when the petitioners received notice under Sec. 9 (1) of the Act from respondent No. 2 they filed this writ petition. ( 4 ) AFTER careful scrutiny of the affidavits, counter-affidavits, report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the impugned two notifications on the record, we find that in spite of the Khasra entries of 1386 F. and 1387 F and inspection note (Annexure-VI to the writ petition) of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the effect that houses were constructed in plots Nos. 66 and 61, the Special Land Acquisition Officer committed grave error by omitting Nos. 61 and 66 in the operative portions of his aforesaid report (Annexure-VI to the writ petition) from being exempted from the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, Plots Nos. 61 and 66 were included in the notification (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) issued under Sec. 6 of the Act. This clearly indicates that the declaration under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act has been made by the Government without applying its mind at all to the report made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2 under Sec. 6-A of the Act. This clearly indicates that the declaration under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act has been made by the Government without applying its mind at all to the report made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2 under Sec. 6-A of the Act. Therefore, it is illegal and contrary to law. ( 5 ) IT is also clear from the record that State Government laid down a criteria that the land of those persons, who have got their houses situate thereon or small cultivators, who will become landless as a result of acquisition proceedings, their land should not be acquired. On this criteria Plots. Nos. 44, 41, 42, 43 and 13 were exempted from acquisition and no notification regarding them was published under S. 6 of the Act. The petitioners were also similarly situated still their plots of land have been acquired. Their cases are in no way different from the cases of the owners of the aforesaid five plots. Equal protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. There is no doubt that differential treatment does not per se constitute violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It denies equal protection only when there is no reasonable basis of the differentiation. In the instant case there is no basis for the differentiation. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution also. ( 6 ) IN the result this writ petition succeeds and the impugned notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act attached as Annexures 3 and 7 to the writ petition are quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs to the petitioners. Petition allowed. .