JUDGMENT G.C. BHARUKA, J. 1. In these writ application the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notifications dated 6th April, 1985, issued under Sections (4), (6) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These notifications have been issued by the State Government for acquiring the lands for the establishment of a Transport City (Pariwahan Nagar) with a view to reduce unprecedented pressure on traffic in Patna urban area. 2. In writ petition No. 2008/85, 2306/85 & 3676/85, petitioner No. 1 is a registered Cooperative Society and they had purchased the lands in question under registered documents in order to provide the same to their members for construction of their dwelling houses and in the remaining writ petitions the petitioners claim to have purchased the lands in question themselves for the construction of their residential houses. 3. Sri Srinath Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has challenged the impugned acquisition proceedings on the grounds, that:– (i) These proceedings have been commenced and continued in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act as amended in 1984; and (ii) The object for which the lands are sought to he acquired is contrary to the statutory master plan prepared for the town of Patna. 4. Before examining the rival contentions with regard to the non–compliance of the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it is necessary to ascertain the statutory provisions applicable in this regard in the State of Bihar. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act') is a pre constitutional legislation. Pursuant to Section 26 of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, "Acquisition and Requisitioning of property" was made a concurrent subject by substituting entry 42 of concurrent List and as such, both the Parliament as well as the legislature of the States acquired the power to make laws in respect of acquisition of land subject to the provisions contained under Article 254 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the State Legislature enacted Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1960 (Bihar Act 11 of 1961) This was enforced by obtaining the assent of the President as published in Bihar Gazette on 25th May, 1961. By this amending Act Sections 3, 4, 5–A, 6, 7, 17, 23, 35 and 58 of the Principal Act were amended and a new Section 12A was inserted. By section 2 of this Act all previous State amending Acts were repealed. By this amending Act Sections 3, 4, 5–A, 6, 7, 17, 23, 35 and 58 of the Principal Act were amended and a new Section 12A was inserted. By section 2 of this Act all previous State amending Acts were repealed. Since then the Central Act as amended by this Act became the law for acquisition of land in the State of Bihar and was being accordingly administered. 5. The acquisition of land being a concurrent subject the Parliament also has legislative competence of amending the laws relating to the subject. Accordingly, the Parliament passed the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984 which came into force on 24th September, 1984. By this amending Act, the Principal Act was substantially amended by inserting five new Sections, amending 21 Sections, substituting one Section and omitting one Section. The Sections, which have been amended by the Parliament also includes the Sections, which were substantially amended by the State legislature by the Bihar Amending Act 11 of 1961. The reasons for these extensive amendments in the existing law are contained in the statement of Object and Reasons in which it has been, inter alia stated that:– "It is necessary, therefore, to restructure the legislative framework for acquisition of land so that it is more adequately informed by this objective of serving the interests of the community in harmony with the rights of the individual. Keeping the above objects in view and considering the recommendations of the Law Commission, the Land Acquisition Review Committee as well as the State Governments, institutions and individuals, proposals, for amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were formulated and a Bill for this purpose was introduced in the Lok Sabha on the 30th April, 1982. The same has not been passed by either House of Parliament. Since the introduction of the Bill, various other proposals for amendment of the Act have been received and they have also been considered in consultations with State Governments and other agencies. It is now proposed to included all these proposals in a fresh bill after withdrawing the pending Bill" 6. It is, therefore, quite clear that tae Parliament reviewing the entire aspect relating to the law of acquisition and to bring about a just and uniform legislation on the subject throughout the territory of India excepting the State of Jammu and Kashmir, had undertaken this legislative exercise. It is, therefore, quite clear that tae Parliament reviewing the entire aspect relating to the law of acquisition and to bring about a just and uniform legislation on the subject throughout the territory of India excepting the State of Jammu and Kashmir, had undertaken this legislative exercise. The obvious intention was to amend or obliterate the existing laws–whether Central or State–in order to provide a new intra tructure to the model law of acquisition. 7. It is now well established that under the proviso to Article 254 (2) of the Constitution, the Parliament is competent to amend, vary or repeal any law made by the legislature of a State on a subject enumerated in the Concurrent List. In the case of T. Barai vs. Henry A/h Hoe and another, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 150 at page 155), it has been held by the Supreme Court that:– "The proviso to Article 254 (2) empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State Law even though it has become valid by virtue of the President's assent. Parliament may repeal or amend the repugnant State law, either directly or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State Law with respect to the same matter. Even though the subsequent law made by parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, even then, the State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made. A State law would be repugnant to the Union law when there is direct conflict between the two laws. Such repugnancy may also arise where both laws operate in the same field and the two can not possibly stand together, e.g. where both prescribe punishment for the same offence but the punishment differs in degree or kind or in the procedure prescribed. In all such cases, the law made by parliament shall prevail ever the State law under Article 254 (1). That being so, when Parliament stepped in and enacted the Central Amendment Act, it being a later law made by Parliament "with respect to the same matter", the West Bengal Amendment Act stood impliedly repealed." Applying the said law laid down by the Supreme Court, in my view the State Amendment Act 11 of 1961 stands impliedly repealed by the Central Amending Act 68 of 1984. The amendments and insertions made by the parliament by the, Amendment Act 68 of 1984 are substantial even in respect of the provisions which are covered by the State Amending Act and a comparison of the two clearly demonstrates the repugnancy as understood in the Constitional sense. 8. Dealing with somewhat a similar situation with regard to the Kerala Act, the Supreme Court in case of Kanthimathy Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and others, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 761 at para 3 has held that:– "In view of the fact that Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was extended to the whole of India excepting one State the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 became applicable to the State of Kerala and in view of the repugnant provision in terms of Article 254 of the Constitution the Kerala Act stood repealed. There is no provision made in the amending Act to indicate repeal of the State law but application of Article 254 is automatic to situation where it is applicable and by the operation of the Article the State Act stood repealed and the Central Act became applicable." 9. This being the situation, I hold that the State Amendment Act 11 of 1961 stood impliedly repealed on 24th September. 1984, and since that date the Lard Acquisition Act 1894, as amended by the Central Act 68 of 1984 is the law for acquisition of land in the State of Bihar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only). 10. On the above premise now let mc examine the grounds of challenge raised by Mr. Srinath Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The grounds based on the statutory requirement of the Act are as follows:– (i) In view of the mandatory requirement of Sections 4 and 6, the notifications ought to have been published in the Bihar Gazette which is the only official Gazette of the State, whereas the impugned notifications have been published in the District Gazette. (ii) Even in case of urgency, in view of Section 17(4) of the Act, a notification under Section 6 of the Act can be made only after the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not simultaneously, as has been done in the present case. (ii) Even in case of urgency, in view of Section 17(4) of the Act, a notification under Section 6 of the Act can be made only after the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not simultaneously, as has been done in the present case. (iii) On the facts of the present case exercise of power under Section 17 of the Act treating the impugned acquisition proceedings as urgent, is an improper exercise of statutory discretion. (iv) The acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 11–A of the Act since no award has been made within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 11. Coming to the first ground of challenge with regard to the publication of notification in the Official Gazette when called upon the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, after seeking sufficient time to examine the matter has fairly conceded that under the Act the notification as to be made in the Official Gazette, which can only mean the Gazette of Bihar and not the District Gazette. He is right in doing so, Section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides as below:– "3(39) 'Official Gazette' or 'Gazette' shall mean the Gazette of India or the official Gazette of a State." It is an admitted position that the Official Gazette of the State of Bihar is only the Bihar Gazette. The District Gazettes, which arc published by the Collector of the Districts are for the purpose of publishing notifications or other local informations issued by the Collectors concerned and as such the same can not be treated to be the Official Gazette of the State. A similar view has been taken in the case of In re–Pesola Subramanyam– Petitioner (reported in AIR 1950 Madras, 308) wherein it has been held that:– "Notified order has been defined in the Act as an order notified in the Official Gazette. Official Gazette has not been definied in the Act. But under the General Clauses Act it means the Gazette of India or as the case may be the Gazette of a Province. In this Province the Official Gazette is the Fort Saint George Gazette. It is conceded by the Public Prosecutor that there is no notification in the Fort Saint George Gazette corresponding to the notification in the Nellore Gazette. In this Province the Official Gazette is the Fort Saint George Gazette. It is conceded by the Public Prosecutor that there is no notification in the Fort Saint George Gazette corresponding to the notification in the Nellore Gazette. The relevant notification of the Collector in the Nellore Gazette, without its being published also in the Fort Saint George Gazette is not valid." For the reason aforesaid, I hold that since the impugned notifications issued under Sections 4, 17(4) and 6 of the Act have been published in the District Gazette only. These do not fulfill the statutory requirements and are accordingly, quashed. However, it will be open for the State Government to issue fresh notifications under the provisions of the Act and proceed with the acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. 12. Since the very preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Act has been quashed, therefore it is not necessary to examine other objections raised on behalf of the petitioners assailing the acquisition proceedings because, either because of this reason the other objections have lost their grounds or the petitioners will have adequate effective remedies under the Act itself for raising those objections at the appropriate stages. 13. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ Applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Land Reforms Commissioner, Government of Bihar, with a direction that copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Collectors under the Act in the State for information and immediate compliance. I agree. Applications allowed.