ORDER M.W. Deo, J. -- 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) Khargone, M.P. and the consequent proceedings to take possession of the land of the petitioner. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner is owner of four Khasra Nos. 160, 161/3, 163 and 199, total area 2.292 hectares situated in village Khal Bujurg, Tahsil Kasrawad, District Khargone. It is also not in dispute that the State Government wanted to acquire all the aforesaid four Khasra numbers for the public purpose of establishment of industry of M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd., New Delhi. By letter, Annexure- 'B', the State Government informed the Collector, Land Acquisition, Khargone that out of the aforesaid four Khasra numbers, three bearing Nos. 160, 161/3 and 199 had already been purchased by M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. and,-therefore, compulsory acquisition be made only of remaining one Khasra No. 163 bearing area 0.295 hactares. this Annexure-'B' is dated 1.12.1990. Accordingly notification under section 6 (Annexure-'C') was issued on 6.12.1990 by Collector Khargone for acquisition of this one Khasra No. 1,63 for public purpose of setting up industry of M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. 3. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Khargone by order (Annexure- 'C') dropped the proceedings regarding acquisition of the aforesaid Khasra No. 163 and also ordered cancellation of earlier notification under section 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in that respect. 4. The second set of facts is that land acquisition proceedings were again initiated regarding the same one Khasra No. 163 with area of only 0.295 hactares, now showing only a different purpose namely setting up of industrial area instead mentioning the name of the industry. The petitioner opposed these land acquisition proceedings again (Annexure- 'D' dated 30.4.1991). He continued resisting the proceedings by amendment vide Annexure-'E' dated 13.6.1991. It is to be noted that this had led to the success of the petitioner in as much as the Collector dropped the land acquisition proceedings on 30.7.1991 by order Annexure-'G'. 5. The petitioner alleges that the respondents now started acting mala rule against him. The Collector (respondent No.3) through his Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent No.4) by Annexure- 'H' dated 29.10.1991 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show-cause why he should not be imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further fine of Rs. 5. The petitioner alleges that the respondents now started acting mala rule against him. The Collector (respondent No.3) through his Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent No.4) by Annexure- 'H' dated 29.10.1991 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show-cause why he should not be imposed fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further fine of Rs. 100/- per day under section 165 (6) of the Act on account of his putting a tin shed on Khasra No. 163. The petitioner filed reply (Annexure-'I') on 4.11.1991. This was followed by dismissal of the application of the petitioner for diversion of Khasra No. 163 by order Annexure- 'L' dated 11.11.1991. Annexure-'L-'1' shows that the Sub-Divisional Officer/Sub-Divisional Magistrate (respondent No.4) started proceedings under section 151, 107 and 116 on the same day vide Annexure'L-1' dated 11.11.1991 calling upon the petitioner to furnish a security of Rs. 20,000/- for not creating obstructions in the matter of land acquisition of Khasra No. 163 and finally a notice under section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act vide Annexure- 'F' dated 14.11.1991 was issued to the petitioner regarding the same piece of land Khasra No. 163. 6. The petitioner alleges that the aforesaid highhanded illegal and mala fide action was taken by respondents 1 to 6 by joining hands with M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd., respondent No.7 who wanted the parcel of land bearing Khasra No. 163 which was not sold by the petitioner to them through indirect way of land acquisition. 7. Respondents 1 to 6 by joint return and respondent 7 by an independent return have denied the mala fides. They have also denied illegality of land acquisition proceedings regarding Khasra No. 163. Respondent No.7 has supported the acquisition proceedings by respondents 1 to 6. 8. The case of the petitioner strikes at once as one which deserves to be accepted on the material facts that (i) four Khasra numbers of the petitioner were sought to be acquired compulsorily for Mis. Respondent No.7 has supported the acquisition proceedings by respondents 1 to 6. 8. The case of the petitioner strikes at once as one which deserves to be accepted on the material facts that (i) four Khasra numbers of the petitioner were sought to be acquired compulsorily for Mis. Maral Overseas Ltd. respondent No. 7; (ii) notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act for compulsory acquisition of all the four Khasra numbers were issued by respondents 1 and 2 specifically showing the purpose as installation of industries of M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. in public interest; (iii) M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. then succeeded in purchasing three Khasra numbers out of the aforesaid four from the petitioner who did not sell Khasra No. 163; (iv) Respondent No.3, Collector, Khargone then issued . notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act again for compulsory acquisition of this Khasra No. 163 for M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd.; (v) the petitioner opposed the acquisition and the Collector by Annexure- 'c' dated 30.7.1991 dropped the acquisition proceedings for Khasra No. 163; (vi) the Collector then issued a fresh notification for acquisition of the same Khasra number only by changing the purpose from one of M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. to setting up of Industrial estate; (vii) Respondent No.7 M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd, has supported the acquisition by respondents 1 to 6 in this petition; (viii) M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. have even shown in the return how the petitioner owns lands which would go in favour of supporting acquisition; (ix) the S.D.O./S.D.M., a subordinate of respondent No. 3 issued notice under section 172 read with section 165 (6-E) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- together with a running penalty of Rs. 100/- per day which was indeed in terrorem against raising only of a' tin shed on this land, Khasra No. 163 by the petitioner; and (x) on the petitioner resisting the proposed imposition of fine, he was arrested and was let of on being compelled to furnish security for Rs. 20,000/- to keep peace. This was followed by a notice under section 9 (3) read with section 17 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure-'F'). 9. The petitioner at this stage came to this Court complaining against the aforesiad high-handedness of the respondents. 20,000/- to keep peace. This was followed by a notice under section 9 (3) read with section 17 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure-'F'). 9. The petitioner at this stage came to this Court complaining against the aforesiad high-handedness of the respondents. The respondents apart from showing that notification was made in newspapers and the consequent acquisition under sections 4 and 6, did not put forth any other material. It is to be seen that as against the specific allegations of high-handedness by respondents 3, 4 and 5, none of them filed an affidavit to controvert the allegation of high-handedness. 10. It is true that law does not prohibit commencement of land acquisition proceedings vis-a-vis a property and second time, after having dropped the proceedings earlier. However, that does not mean that the second initiation of proceedings should be permitted even if it is mala fide. In the present case the glaring factual position that initially all the four Khasra numbers were sought to be acquired for M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. then they succeeded in purchasing three khasra numbers from petitioner, so the Collector issued notification for acquisition of the fourth and then dropped the proceedings cannot be disputed. 11. If the purpose of acquisition was really public interest, nothing prevented the Collector from pursuing the land acquisition proceeding vis-a-vis all the four Khasra numbers or even of one Khsra No. 163 in second round. But when second round of proceedings was commenced vis-a-vis Khasra No. 163 only, the cat was out of bag because the Collector in the notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act showed public purpose as establishment of industry of M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. This probably was thought to be inconvenient by both the Collector and respondent No.7. It is not difficult to see the hidden hand working when we find that these proceedings were dropped by order dated 30.7.1991 which in reality was only cover to hide earlier motivated proceedings. For the immediate next step taken by the Collector is undisputedly that a fresh notification was issued for compulsory acquisition of the same land head over the heals of dropping it, now by changing the description of purpose from need of M/s. Maral Oversaes Ltd. to one of setting up of "Industrial Estate". For the immediate next step taken by the Collector is undisputedly that a fresh notification was issued for compulsory acquisition of the same land head over the heals of dropping it, now by changing the description of purpose from need of M/s. Maral Oversaes Ltd. to one of setting up of "Industrial Estate". It requires little common sense to find that a small plot of land of 0.295 hectares area could hardly be considered to be in public interest of establishing industrial area. The petitioner rightly contends that description of this purpose was merely a camouflage to hide mala fides of getting the land in reality for M/s. Maral Overseas Ltd. 12. The following acts of respondents 3 to 6 of the dismissal of prayer of the petitioner for diversion (Annexure-'1'), the issuance of notice proposing preposterously high fine under section 172 (4) read with section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (Annexure- 'H') and the arrest of the petitioner by commencement of proceedings (Annexure-'L-1') against him all on the same day i.e. 11.11.1991 cannot be dismissed with wry smile by calling it sheer co-incidence. We have absolutely no hesitation in holding that the industry and effort seen in the return of respondent 7 showing facts and figures of the property of the petitioner to support the acquisition by respondents 1 to 6 of Khasra No. 163 makes the case of the petitioner clearly acceptable that respondents 1 to 6 are working hand in glove with respondent No.7 to deprive him of his land Khasra No. 163 in the name of compulsory acquisition in public interest. 13. In fact the happenings and their chronology leave no room for doubt that the initiation of third round of compulsory acquisition of Khasra No. 163 and the subsequent proceedings by respondent No.3 are certainly acts in pursuance of a design and not with a innocent mind. It is true that mala fide is not to be easily presumed. The party alleging it must satisfy the Court that there are such facts and circumstances on which mala fides could be legitimately presumed. The chronology of facts stated above lead only to one goal of getting one Khasra No. 163 which the petitioner had refused to sell to respondent No.7. The party alleging it must satisfy the Court that there are such facts and circumstances on which mala fides could be legitimately presumed. The chronology of facts stated above lead only to one goal of getting one Khasra No. 163 which the petitioner had refused to sell to respondent No.7. These speaking circumstances do not leave, in our considered opinion, any room for doubt to legitimately infer mala fides on the part of the respondents in commencing and going ahead with the compulsory land acquisition proceedings right up to the stage of notice under section 9and 17 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure 'F') in Case No. 2/ A-82/90-91 Land Acquisition of Collector, Land Acquisition, Khargone, District Khargone, M.P. 14. It was contended for the petitioner that the publication of notice of acquisition in newspaper cannot amount to good and valid notice as the petitioner who is hardly literate cannot be expected to go through the small advertisements in the shape of notification in daily news papers. Rural agriculturists certainly deserve notification by such reasonable means from which they can legitimately be held to have notice therefrom. The principle of notice was considered in Narinderjit Singh's case ( AIR 1973 SC 552 ) and Khub Chand's case ( AIR 1967 SC 1074 ). We hold that the case also suffers from want of sufficient and valid notice necessary for valid acquisition. 15. In the result the petition succeeds. The Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of Khasra No. 163 described above in Land Acquisition Case No. 21 A-82/90-91 of Collector (Land Acquisition) Khargone are quashed. Petitioner shall have costs from respondents 1 to 6. The amount of security cost be refunded to the petitioner, after verification. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-, if certified.