JUDGMENT - PATEL H.D., J.:—By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the Land Acquisition proceedings in Revenue Case No. 215/A-65/56-57 and its Award dated 1st August, 1985 (Annexure XII) and to abandon the portion of the house property now in possession of the petitioner from the acquisition for Central Road Scheme Section III. 2. The aunt of the petitioner by name Krishnabai owned a house property where she was residing bearing Corporation House No. 548 D-8. Survey No. 11/16 within the limits of Nagpur Improvement Trust, hereinafter referred to as “the respondent Trust”. In the year 1947, a part of the said house property was ordered to be sold in satisfaction of the decree in Civil Suit No. 79 of 1946 by the Civil Judge. Nagpur and a sale-deed came to be Registered on 21-11-1947 in favour of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. 3. The respondent Trust issued a first Notification on 24-11-1944, declaring its intention for acquiring certain lands including the said house property for the purpose of Central Road Scheme section III. The said Central Road is now known as Central Avenue Road. Subsequently, the State Government sanctioned the scheme under section 44 of Nagpur Improvement Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust Act”) and a final notification to that effect came to be published under section 45 of that Act. About more than ten years later, acquisition proceedings in respect of the house property owned by Krishnabai commenced. These proceedings culminated into an award dated 21st April, 1961. On 5th May, 1963 Krishnabai, the aunt of the petitioner, died. 4. It is then alleged that the respondent Trust having acquired necessary, land for the purpose of carrying out the scheme, commenced abandoning the, plots and in many cases even signed the agreements with persons from whom the land was, acquired. The respondents Nos. 4 and 5 also applied for abandonment of their respective properties in their possession. It appears that the respondent Trust abandoned their property vide agreement dated 11th August, 1964. 5. Since Krishnabai had expired the petitioner approached the Land Acquisition Officer for mutating his name as the legal heir but it is alleged that the desired mutation was not effected. Instead, the names of respondents 4 and 5 appear to have been brought on record. 5. Since Krishnabai had expired the petitioner approached the Land Acquisition Officer for mutating his name as the legal heir but it is alleged that the desired mutation was not effected. Instead, the names of respondents 4 and 5 appear to have been brought on record. The petitioner has, therefore, filed relevant documents like record of rights to establish his ownership. The petitioner even moved the respondent Trust for recording his name and abandoning the property owned by him in his favour by various representations. 6. It is then alleged by the petitioner that Shri Khirwadkar, the then Land Acquisition Officer probed into one of the applications filed by the petitioner and submitted his report to the Collector in which it was revealed that the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 got the abandonment agreement executed with the respondent Trust by incorporating even the part of the area owned by the petitioner. It may be relevant to observe here that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were the owners of the respective properties having purchased the same in auction which are situated on either side of the property owned by the petitioner. In spite of the report, no action appears to have been taken. 7. The respondent No. 2—the Land Acquisition Officer issued notices to the petitioner as well as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to hand over the possession of the house properties in their possession. By order dated 1st August, 1985. The Collector was directed to obtain possession under section 47 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since no other alternative was left, this petition came to be filed seeking aforestated reliefs. 8. The respondent Trust opposed the petition on the various grounds. Their main contention was that it is not now possible to abandon the acquired property because of the judgment delivered on 3 /5th April, 1974, by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 885 of 1968. (Krishnarao Sadasheorao Yerkunthwar v. The Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur through its Chairman and 2 others)1, connected petitions relating to the same, scheme, namely, Central Road Scheme. According to the judgment, no land in excess of what is required by the scheme was acquired by the Nagpur Improvement Trust and, therefore, the question of application of section 68 does not arise. The findings in the judgment preclude the petitioner from seeking abandonment of the property. According to the judgment, no land in excess of what is required by the scheme was acquired by the Nagpur Improvement Trust and, therefore, the question of application of section 68 does not arise. The findings in the judgment preclude the petitioner from seeking abandonment of the property. It would be appropriate to consider the findings rendered by the Division Bench and the provisions of section 68 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act which deal with abandonment. 9. In the aforesaid case, this Court was dealing with a bunch of petitions under which the applications for abandonment of the respective petitioners were rejected by the Nagpur Improvement Trust and those rejected applications were being challenged by them. At the time of challenge, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land were pending. The acquisition was for the very same scheme as is involved in this petition, namely, “The Central Road Scheme”. The scheme was for creation of new communication offering adequate facilities for through or local traffic with proper conservancy arrangements, both along the road itself and in its neighbourhood and for providing suitable sites for sites for modem shops of good class and residential buildings. While considering those petitions, the Division Bench in its lengthy judgment held as follows: “It does appear to us that section 68 of the Trust Act can mainly come into operation only in respect of affected land. In the instant case, no land is included in the scheme as being the affected land and the land which is sought to be acquired is land which is covered by the scheme as being necessary for the execution of the scheme, namely, for the construction of road and for making provisions for building sites. There can, therefore, be no occasion for the application of section 68 in the instant case.” Based on aforesaid findings, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that section 68 of the Act makes no difference whether the land which is sought to be abandoned should be an affected land or land covered by the scheme. It was also contended that by using the word 'mainly' in the first line of the extracted paragraph, a scope is still left open to urge that the land other than affected land, namely, the one needed for the scheme itself can also be covered in that section. It was also contended that by using the word 'mainly' in the first line of the extracted paragraph, a scope is still left open to urge that the land other than affected land, namely, the one needed for the scheme itself can also be covered in that section. We, however, do not feel it necessary to enter into this controversy. It is true that when the Division Bench decided the aforesaid case, the scheme was at an infancy stage and a clear picture would emerge when the scheme is about to be completed. But then section 68 makes no provision for making of an application for abandonment at the stage when the scheme is practically coming to an end. This can be best understood by reading section 68 as a whole. It is reproduced below: “68. (1) Wherever in any area comprised in any improvement scheme under this Act the State Government has sanctioned the acquisition of land which is subsequently discovered to be unnecessary for the execution of the scheme, the owner of the land, or any person having an interest therein, may make an application to the Trust requesting that the acquisition of the land not required for the purpose of the scheme should be abandoned on his executing an agreement to observe conditions specified by the Trust in respect of the development of the property and to pay a charge to be calculated in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 69 of the Act. (2) The Trust shall admit every such application if it— (a) reaches it before the time fixed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for making claims in reference to the land, and (b) is made by any person who has an interest in the land or holds a lease thereof, with an unexpired period of seven years. (3) On the admission by the Trust of any such application, it shall forth with inform the Deputy Commissioner; and the Deputy Commissioner shall thereupon stay for a period of three months all further proceedings for the acquisition of the land, and the Trust shall proceed to fix the conditions on which the acquisition of the land may be abandoned. (3) On the admission by the Trust of any such application, it shall forth with inform the Deputy Commissioner; and the Deputy Commissioner shall thereupon stay for a period of three months all further proceedings for the acquisition of the land, and the Trust shall proceed to fix the conditions on which the acquisition of the land may be abandoned. (4) When an agreement has been executed in pursuance of sub-section (1) in respect of any land the proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall be deemed to be abandoned…………” It is obvious that the section contemplates an area comprised in a scheme under the act pursuant to which the Government has sanctioned the acquisition of land, which land is subsequently discovered to be unnecessary for execution of that scheme. It is only when some land included in the scheme is discovered to be unnecessary after the sanction of the acquisition that its owner or any person having an interest therein is entitled to make an application requesting for abandonment of its acquisition on such terms and conditions as may be imposed in that behalf. In other words, it is when this initial condition is satisfied that the occasion for making an application for abandonment arises. The application has to be made after sanction of the acquisition within the limit prescribed by sub-section (2) of section 68. The scheme is sanctioned by the State Government under section 44 of the Trust Act and it becomes final upon its publication under section 45. Sub-section (2) of section 68 provides that the application for abandonment must reach the Trust before the time fixed by the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act for making claims in reference to the land. The limit within which the applications for abandonment are to be made is fixed by this sub-section. When all these conditions are complied with, then the Trust is bound to admit the application so made if the applicant owns the lands in question or is a mortgagee or a lessee thereof with unexpired lease period of seven years. It is noteworthy that unless the acquisition of land is discovered to be unnecessary for execution of the scheme, the section does not operate and there is no question of Trust possessing any power to exempt lands from the scheme under the section. It is noteworthy that unless the acquisition of land is discovered to be unnecessary for execution of the scheme, the section does not operate and there is no question of Trust possessing any power to exempt lands from the scheme under the section. Sub-section (3) of section 68 is merely procedural inasmuch as the Trust can inform the Collector about the admission of the application in which case he can stay the acquisition proceedings for a period of three months by which time it is open for the Trust to settle the terms and conditions for abandonment of the land. It is only upon execution of the arrangement between the parties the land is deemed to be abandoned under sub-section (4) of section 68 of the Trust Act. 10. Admittedly, the application for abandonment was not filed by the petitioner at the stage contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Trust Act and his filing of the application at a later stage is of no avail. It is difficult to read sub-section (1) of section 68 disjunctively from sub-sections (2) and (3) as was canvassed before us. There is thus no substance in the submission that application for abandonment could be made by the petitioner even after the stage contemplated by sub-section (2) has expired. The petitioner is hence not entitled to claim abandonment of-land acquired by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. 11. It appears that the respondent Trust entered into an agreement with the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 for abandoning the portion acquired from them and included even the part of the area owned by the petitioner. The inclusion of the portion owned by the petitioner may be to form a regular plot. The petitioner alleges that he is still in possession of the portion owned by him and will continue to hold the same even hereafter. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to disturb that agreement which is deemed to have achieved finality. The real dispute is in relation to the remaining acquired land; a portion of which is already sold and the vendor has obtained the regular lease-deed from the Nagpur Improvement Trust. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to disturb that agreement which is deemed to have achieved finality. The real dispute is in relation to the remaining acquired land; a portion of which is already sold and the vendor has obtained the regular lease-deed from the Nagpur Improvement Trust. According to the petitioner, there could be no harm if the Nagpur Improvement Trust could even allot the portion in his possession on which the house also stands, may be on usual terms and conditions of lease as may be settled between them. We see no objection in issuing the direction to that effect. 12. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate the portion of the house property which is presently in his possession is hereby quashed. The Nagpur Improvement Trust is directed to transfer the land on which house property stands and not covered by the agreement dated 11th August, 1964, on lease to the petitioner, treating him to be an evictee, on such terms and conditions settled between the parties. All this should be done as far as practicable within a period of four months. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Petition partly allowed. -----