JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.4.1992 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, by which Hon'ble the Chief Justice allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners placing reliance over the Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Rajendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2232 of 1989. 2. The learned Single Judge, in Rajendra Kumar's case, quashed the Notification dated 28.3.1980 issued under section 32 of the Urban Improvement Act, 1959 as well as the Notification dated 12.5.1988 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the acquisition,proceedings can commence only after framing of the Scheme, for which the land is acquired and since no Scheme was framed under the Act in the present case, therefore, the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government cannot be initiated and the notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be issued. The learned Single Judge, in allowing the petition in Rajendra Kumar's case, while quashing the proceedings, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in : State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. A. Mohammed Yusuf, JT 1991(1) SC 347. The learned Single Judge, also, observed that neither any Scheme was framed under section 34 nor the mandatory provisions dealt with under sections 36 & 38 of the Act have been complied with and as a result of the same, the acquisition proceedings said to be held as invalid. 3. The same controversy : whether the preparation of the Scheme under section 12 of the Urban Improvement Act is necessary before initiation of the proceedings, came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges 'in Pratap & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors., 1996(2) Supreme 533 . In the case of Pratap, the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. A. Mohammed Yusuf & Ors. was, also considered and the Apex Court, after considering the law on the point, held that "even if there is no Scheme prepared or finalised under a Housing Board or Urban Improvement Act, acquisition could be validly made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose or under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act for the purpose of improvement or for any other purpose under the Act. The decision relating to Rajasthan Act is directly on the point. The other decision under the Tamil Nadu Act does not, therefore, required any further discussion." 4. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pratap & Ann (supra), the or the Scheme is not a sine qua non for initiation of the acquisition proceedings. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 5. The next ground on which the acquisition proceedings have been quashed by the Hon'ble Chef Justice is that the mandatory provisions of Sees. 36 & 38 of the Act have not been complied with. Both these provisions, also, relate to the framing of the Scheme for which the land is required. Section 36 deals with the abandonment of the Scheme or application to the Government to sanction it while Section 38 deals with Notification of Sanction of the Scheme. As these two provisions, also, relate to the framing or abandonment of the Scheme and the Supreme Court, in the case of Pratap, held that framing of the Scheme is not a sine qua non for initiation of the proceedings, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified' in quashing and setting-aside the acquisition proceedings on this ground. The judgment passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice quashing the Scheme on this ground, also, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Since number of the other points were, also, involved in the writ petition which have not been decided by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, it will be, therefore, in the interest of justice that 'the matter should be remanded to the learned Single Judge to decide it in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the respondents to file reply. 7. In . the, result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment dated 7.4.1992 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice is quashed and set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of filing reply to the respondents.Appeal allowed. *******