S.N. Phukan, J.— This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notification dated 14.1.1988 issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act),1894, declaring that 480.00 sq. m. of land is required for a public purpose viz construction of Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. The land is situated at Police Bazar of Shillong Town which is a commercial area. Prior to that a notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 30th June, 1987 calling for objection under section 5A of the Act from the interested person. The land proposed to be acquired belonged to the petitioners and petitioners filed an objection which was rejected and thereafter the above notification under section 6 was issued, 2. The petitioners has impleaded State Govt., the learned Collector, as well as, Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. 3. We have heard Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitio­ners and Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned Advocate General for the Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. and Mrs. B. Dutta for the other respondents. 4. We need not state the plea taken in the petition and also the statement made in the counter-affidavit. It is stated at the bar that there was an attempt of compromise, but subsequently it failed. We may note here that the petitioners already obtained permission from the Shillong Municipality which was subsequently cancelled and for which a writ petition was filed and the same was disposed of, for construction of a 3 storied building, part of which will also be a hotel. There was also tenant in the said land. 5. We have received records from the learned Collector and not from the State Govt. 6. From the records of the learned Collector we find that by order dated 27.8.87, the learned Collector on the objection filed under section 5A of the Act was of the opinion that the present land acquisition proceeding may be dropped and an alternative side may be selected for the Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank. We would like to emphasise that in a proceeding under the Act, the report of the Collector is very important as he represents the Govt. in the district and his views cannot be brushed aside without any valid reason. No reason has been stated in the counter filed on behalf of the State Govt. We would like to emphasise that in a proceeding under the Act, the report of the Collector is very important as he represents the Govt. in the district and his views cannot be brushed aside without any valid reason. No reason has been stated in the counter filed on behalf of the State Govt. as to why the views of the Collector was not accepted. As stated above, the records of the State Govt. are also not available with us. In fact, we are not in a position to know, in absence of any statement in the counter and also records as to whether actually this report was at all considered by the State Govt. On this ground alone, we are of the opinion that the impugned notification issued under section 6 of the Act is liable to be quashed. 7. As stated above, there was an attempt to compromise the matter and we are informed at the bar that the petitioners were willing to give 2500 sq. ft. of land for construction of the building for the bank. Mr. Lahiri has stated that minimum 3000 sq. ft. would be required for the bank to construct its building. Learned counsel has further stated that estimate for acquiring the land was made by the Collector and bank deposited a sum of Rs. 6.45.000/- with the Collector. According to Mr. Lahiri as the bank does commercial transaction of money, the amount deposited could have been utilised fruitfully by the bank and accordingly a petition was moved before this Court for issuing a direction for depositing the amount with some bank so that interest is paid. In spite of Court's order, the amount was not kept. On instruction Mr. Lahiri states that now the Collector has deposited the amount as per direction of this Court. 8. If we quash the notification, it may unnecessarily delay the matter. Considering the fact that both the petitioners whose permission for construc­tion of building was cancelled by the Municipal Board requires the land urgently for completing the proposed building and the ban k also need land for constructions of its building instead of quashing the notification, we propose to issue suitable direction for modification of the notification by the State Govt. Considering the fact that both the petitioners whose permission for construc­tion of building was cancelled by the Municipal Board requires the land urgently for completing the proposed building and the ban k also need land for constructions of its building instead of quashing the notification, we propose to issue suitable direction for modification of the notification by the State Govt. In this connection our attention has been drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & others vs. K. K. Chopra (dean) L. Es, AIR 1988 SC 2036 , and from the said decision we find that writ Court has got power to modify such notification. 9. According to Mr.Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners the petitioners have already constructed a portion of the building as per permission granted by the Municipal Board. Mr. Goswami, has urged that while selecting the area as per modified order, the said construction may not be included. 10. Our attention has been drawn to the letter dated 28th February, 1991 from the petitioner to the Shillong Co-operative Urban Bank in which peti­tioner stated that it was no pleasure for us to file the writ petition in the High Court. Under compelling circumstances, we had to file the petition ...... We would, however, like to make an earnest appeal to the Bank, that instead of approximate 2000 sq. ft. being left with us it may be made approximate 3000 sq. ft. We have made some constructions and three rooms were completed and the area to be excluded from the acquisition should include the said construc­tion". Our attention has been drawn to the letter dated 9th November, 1989 issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Co-operation Department to the Officer on Special Duty. Revenue Department, by which the compromise was not accepted and it was decided to contest the petition. This papers were made available to us at the time of arguments. We were also supplied with letter dated 6th September, 1991 from the Officer on Special Duty, Revenue Department to Registrar of Co-operative Societies, wherein it was stated that : "I am directed to state that the Govt. policy relating to a ban on fragmentation of Govt. leased land below 120 acres or 5270 sq. ft. We were also supplied with letter dated 6th September, 1991 from the Officer on Special Duty, Revenue Department to Registrar of Co-operative Societies, wherein it was stated that : "I am directed to state that the Govt. policy relating to a ban on fragmentation of Govt. leased land below 120 acres or 5270 sq. ft. more or less in European Ward, Police Bazar and Jail Road cannot be relaxed since the policy was evolved for the general interest of the public.". 11. We do not want to express any opinion on this letter, as the basis for such policy decision only for the three wards and not for the entire Shillong Town have not been stated and this letter has also not been challenged before us in this proceeding. We keep it open for consideration of the legality or otherwise of this policy decision, if any occasion arises in future. 12. For what has been stated above, we direct the respondents to modify the impugned notification No. RDA.12/87/ 41 dated 14.1.88 issued under section 6 of the Act by reducing the area from 480.00 sq.m. to 3000 sq.ft. of the area included in the above notification and after modification it shall be re-published in the Gazette, This shall he done within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the judgment by the State Govt. We further direct that there shall be a survey of the area to be acquired and shall be conducted by the Collector in presence of both the parties and in earmarking the area to be acquired, the new construction of the petitioners shall be excluded. Thereafter, the Collector shall make the award within a period of one month. We make it clear that the petitioners shall have the right to seek remedy under section 18 of the Act if they are not satisfied with the award. 13. In view of the above position, petitioners may submit a revised plan for the construction .of the building to the Municipal Authority and permission shall be granted within a period of one month from the date of filing, with such modification or alteration as the Board may deem fit and proper. The interim order passed by this Court directing maintenance of status quo shall continue for a period of 15 days to enable the respondents to survey the land and thereafter it shall stand vacated. The interim order passed by this Court directing maintenance of status quo shall continue for a period of 15 days to enable the respondents to survey the land and thereafter it shall stand vacated. With the above direction petition is disposed of. No Costs.