HON GYANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a registered co-operative housing society, by this petition challenges the legality and validity of acquisition of land measuring 54 431 hectares situated in Patwari Halka no. 17 village nipaniya ten. and ditt. Indore by the respondent Housing Board. ( 2 ) PETITIONER's main objection is to acquisition of land is that in the absence of a housing scheme as contemplated by section 2 (9) and sections 31 to 34 and section 49 of the M. P. Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam (for short 'the Adhiniyam'), the acquisition proceeding as a whole including the various notification issued under the land Acquisition Act, stands vitiated and the notifications rendered invalid. There is no sanctioned housing scheme which can be implemented on the land sought to be acquired. ( 3 ) APART from a general caveat filed by the respondent Board a reply to the application for ad Interim writ denying the allegations of non-existence of scheme, supported by affidavit and documents has also been filed by the respondent-Board. ( 4 ) SIMILAR objection has been raised by the petitioner before the Land acquisition officer. The objection dated 8 6 92. has been placed on record, as Annexure 'a' to the petition. ( 5 ) THE respondent-Board by its reply dated 29 6. 92 filed as Annexure r-2 denied all the allegations made by the petitioner emphatically reiterating the existence of an approved housing scheme, which has been placed on record as Annexure R-3. Annexure R-4 is the map subject of course to eventual necessary modifications. ( 6 ) THE main thrust of petitioner's contention is non-existence of an approved housing scheme. Shri Hardia learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on an order passed by this court on 7. 8. 92 in M. P. 638/88 which in turn proceeds on a Supreme Court judgment as reported in slate of Tamil Nadu v. Mohd. Yousef and ors , (1991) SCC 224. ( 7 ) SHRI Swami learned counsel for the respondent Board, while not disputing the proposition of law as laid down in the atoresaid judgments submitted that there is a scheme on record as per Annexure R-3. ( 8 ) WE have gone through the order dated 20. 8. 92 passed in M. P. No 638/88, a certified copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner. ( 8 ) WE have gone through the order dated 20. 8. 92 passed in M. P. No 638/88, a certified copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner. But it materially differs on facts. Learned counsel for the respondents argues, pointing to the following para :"curiously enough the Housing Board oblivious of the necessity of having a Housing Scheme under section 33 of the Adhioiyam proceeded to acquire land In fact it is pleaded case, contrary to the provisions of law and the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above that the Housing Board first acquires the land and thereafter prepares housing schemes. This is nothing short of putting a base at the pinnacle In the instant case the very foundation for initiation of acquisition proceedings is missing. "no doubt a factual dispute has been sought to be created by the respondents by placing on record the so called scheme; but to raise a dispute is one thing and to substantiate the same is altogether a different thing. The scheme as placed on record is years after issuance of notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act but what the law requires is that before the issuance of such notification a housing scheme as sanctioned and approved, is in existence, It is nothing sort of putting a cart before the horse where the notification precede the scheme. In this view of the matter the factual dispute as raised by the respondents is of no avail to them. ( 9 ) IT was pointed out with reference to Annexure R-3 that a similar contention was raised by the petitioner and had been refuted by the respondents board before the Land Acquisition Officer. This refutation again is of no consequence when the scheme as placed itself is post-dated. ( 10 ) NO other point is either raised or praised into service. Although the petitioner has raised a question of due service of notices but in view of the fact that the petitioner society had infact raised objections before the land Acquisition Officer, even this point of service of notices looses much of its significance. ( 11 ) FOLLOWING the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported In State of Tamil Nadu v. Mohd. ( 11 ) FOLLOWING the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported In State of Tamil Nadu v. Mohd. Yousef and ors , (1991) SCC 224, and the judgment of this court passed in M. P. No. 638/88 on 20 8. 92, this petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed with costs Counsel's fee Rs 500/-, if certified. Notifications and acquisition proceedings arc quashed. Petition allowed .