JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioner has challenged the acquisition of his land Survey Nos. 96 and 97 situated at village Bolhegaon in Nagar District. The respondent State applied the provisions of Chapter VI of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "the MID Act") by publishing a notification under sub-section (3) of section 1, for the lands in village Bolhegaon, on 17-3-1978. The total area of 216.84 Hectares of village Bolhegaon was notified along with the area of 70.61 Hectares of village Nimbalk and 164.44 Hectares of village Nagpur, under that notification. 2.However, further notification dated 17-3-1982 was issued under which it was declared that the provisions of Chapter VI of the MID Act shall cease to be in force for the area of 71.57 Hectares area of village Nagapur; 31.49 Hectares of village Nimblak and 175.48 Hectares of village Bolhegaon. Thus, for village Bolhegaon, provisions of Chapter VI of the MID Act were made applicable only to the area of 41.36 Hectares. The lands Survey Nos. 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, and two lands of the petitioner, Survey Nos. 96 and 97 were covered under this notification of the area of 41.48 Hectares. 3.The petitioner has contended that his land is having deep black soil, very fertile land for agricultural purposes. There is well and Bagayat crops are being cultivated on this land and this land is not at all suitable for the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (For short, hereinafter referred to as "the MIDC" ), for which it is proposed to be acquired. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the revenue authorities had accepted this stand taken by the petitioner. However, as the petitioner is not an influential person, his land was not excluded from the application of Chapter VI of the MID Act. The lands belonging to influential persons are only released from the application of Chapter VI of the MID Act, and thus, injustice is caused to the petitioner. The discrimination is without any basis. On the contrary, the lands which are released from the application of Chapter VI of the MID Act, are more suitable for MIDC purposes. 4.The petitioner made representations again and again. There was the report of the Collector, Ahmednagar, which indicated that the land of the petitioner was not fit for acquisition for MIDC. The discrimination is without any basis. On the contrary, the lands which are released from the application of Chapter VI of the MID Act, are more suitable for MIDC purposes. 4.The petitioner made representations again and again. There was the report of the Collector, Ahmednagar, which indicated that the land of the petitioner was not fit for acquisition for MIDC. The Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 1, who was authorised to take up the proceedings of the land acquisition under the MID Act, was also convinced that the land of the petitioner was not fit for acquisition for MIDC. He had accordingly made a report to the authorities under his letters dated 24-6-1985 and 22-7-1986. However, the officers of respondent No. 2 brought pressure on respondent No. 1 and, therefore, respondent No. 1 issued notification under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the MID Act declaring that the lands were being acquired for MIDC. 5.It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances even when he was convinced that the land should not be acquired. He acted as prompted by the officers of the MIDC. So, the notification under section 32(1) of the MID Act has to be quashed. 6.It is also contended by the petitioner, that the MIDC is having ample land of its own which is lying vacant because no industries are coming forward to take those plots for starting industries and that land can be utilised by the MIDC for the purpose for which there is proposal of acquisition of land of the petitioner. It is also contended that as per the notification issued in the year 1971, making applicable the provisions of Chapter VI to the lands of village Nagapur and Nimblak, the respondents have not acquired considerably large area and if that area of land is acquired, then there would be no need for acquisition of the land of the petitioner. It is also contended that the land which is under acquisition is the only land of the petitioner. If the land is acquired, the petitioner will be landless and this is against the policy of the State. It is also contended that the land which is under acquisition is the only land of the petitioner. If the land is acquired, the petitioner will be landless and this is against the policy of the State. 7.The petitioner, therefore, has prayed that the order passed by the respondent No. 1 on 5-9-1986 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner, as per the provisions of section 32 of the MID Act, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to denotify or release the land from acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the purpose of MIDC at Ahmednagar. 8.Respondent No. 1, in its affidavit in reply, has contended that the challenges which are made by the petitioner to the acquisition were made in the petitions filed by the land owners of the other Survey Numbers which are under acquisition, being Writ Petitions Nos. 376 to 385 of the year 1987, all these challenges were rejected by the Division Bench of this Court as per the judgment dated 4th March 1987. So, now the petitioner cannot raise the same contentions. 9.It is further contended that as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the MID Act, notice was issued to the petitioner on 14-11-1983 and opportunity was given to him to submit his objections. He was personally heard on 3-6-1985 and thereafter respondents No. 1 decided that the land should be acquired for MIDC. So, all the procedure prescribed under the MID Act and Rules thereunder, for acquisition of the land, is followed by the respondent and now the petitioner cannot challenge the acquisition. 10.However, it is admitted by respondent No. 1 that the Collector, Ahmednagar, had submitted a report to the Under Secretary of Industry, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya, Bombay, that the lands were fertile black soil lands and those be deleted from acquisition. But it is the stand of respondent No. 1 that whether the land should be acquired or not was a question to be decided by the MIDC. The MIDC was insisting for acquisition of the land. After obtaining the say of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC, dated 29-8-1986, the acquisition proceedings were finalised by respondent No. 1. But it is the stand of respondent No. 1 that whether the land should be acquired or not was a question to be decided by the MIDC. The MIDC was insisting for acquisition of the land. After obtaining the say of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC, dated 29-8-1986, the acquisition proceedings were finalised by respondent No. 1. Notice also is issued to the petitioner under sub-section (5) of section 32 of the MID Act, on 10-3-1987, calling upon him to hand over the possession of the land. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 11.Respondent No. 2, in its affidavit in reply, has also taken the stand that the points which are raised by the present petitioner, challenging the acquisition of his land were duly considered by the Division Bench of this Court and are rejected and, therefore, now same points cannot be agitated again. It is also denied that large area of the land acquired for the purpose of the MIDC is lying vacant. It is also denied that the lands belonging to influential persons were released from the application of Chapter VI of the MID Act. There is no discrimination while releasing the lands from acquisition. The lands of the petitioner are adjacent to the other land which is in possession of the MIDC and, therefore, it is suitable for the purpose of MIDC. It is denied that the land is very fertile land and Bagayat land. The crops like Jawar, Maize and grass were being cultivated on this land. So, it cannot be said that Bagayat land is being acquired. The 7/12 Extracts of the land held by the petitioner are produced on record to show that the land is of ordinary quality and not Bagayat land and the land revenue payable is also meagre indicating that the land is of ordinary quality. 12.Learned Counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the notification making applicable the provisions of Chapter VI of the MID Act was published on 17-3-1978. Thereafter, villagers of Bolhegaon, Nagapur and Nimblak took objection to the notification. The Collector, Ahmednagar, appointed Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, to inspect the lands. The Tahsildar submitted his report and thereafter, the Collector by his letter dated 15-5-1978, informed the Government that the lands of these villages need not be acquired. Thereafter, villagers of Bolhegaon, Nagapur and Nimblak took objection to the notification. The Collector, Ahmednagar, appointed Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, to inspect the lands. The Tahsildar submitted his report and thereafter, the Collector by his letter dated 15-5-1978, informed the Government that the lands of these villages need not be acquired. Copy of that letter is filed by the petitioner at Exhibit "C" at page No. 33 of the petition. It appears that on receiving this report of the Collector and the various petitions from the land owners, the notification dated 17-3-1982 was issued and so far as village Bolhegaon is concerned, 175.48 Hectares land was released from the application of Chapter VI of the MID Act, and only 41.48 Hectares land was decided to be acquired. Respondent No. 1 has admitted this fact in his written statement. 13.However, this circumstance shows that the survey of all the lands was taken and then the Government came to conclusion that only 41.48 Hectares land should be acquired. The stand taken by the owners with respect to this much area was not accepted by the Government and the fact remains that this decision was taken by the Government after verifying the situation. 14.In the light of these circumstances, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no business to reopen the subject by his letter dated 22-7-1986 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, MIDC, which is at Exhibit "F" at page 47 of the petition. The Sub-Divisional Officer being the Government Officer, at the most, could have moved the higher authorities. However, it appears that he has gone out of way and has written letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC. The petitioner cannot take advantage of this letter dated 22-7-1986 written by the Sub-Divisional Officer, firstly because the issue was closed after the notification dated 17-3-1982. Secondly, because there is no substance in the contention of the Sub-Divisional Officer, that the land of the petitioner is very fertile land and not fit for acquisition for MIDC purposes. 15.The 7/12 Extract produced on record of Survey Nos. 96 and 97 show that the land is not at all fertile. Only Kharip crops are being cultivated on this land. The land revenue payable of this land is so meagre that it indicates that it is not fertile land. 15.The 7/12 Extract produced on record of Survey Nos. 96 and 97 show that the land is not at all fertile. Only Kharip crops are being cultivated on this land. The land revenue payable of this land is so meagre that it indicates that it is not fertile land. There is no substance in the contention that the land is having black soil and it is used for cultivation of Bagayat crops. No doubt, the petitioner has submitted 7/12 Extracts of the period 1989-90 onwards which shows that in the year 1998-99 some fruit plants were planted on the land Survey No. 96. But that is a subsequent development. The condition of the land at the time of notification under section 32(1) of the MID Act has to be taken into consideration and, at that time, not only the land was Jirayat land, but it was a very low quality land. 16.Learned Counsel for petitioner has also argued that the lands which are denotified are of very poor quality compared to the land of the petitioner and even then those are denotified. However, this stand of the petitioner also is not worth considering. The lands which are denotified and which are of poor quality are not adjacent to the land which is already in possession of the MIDC. As against this, the land of the petitioner is adjacent to the land which is in possession of the MIDC, just touching the southern boundary of the land of the MIDC, as per the map produced on record by the petitioner himself. After taking into consideration the topography and the situation of the lands, the lands which are adjacent to the land already in possession of the MIDC are decided to be acquired. So, the petitioner cannot go on comparing his land with the lands which are released from acquisition, and the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into that question to find out which is land of better quality. The concerned authorities have to decide which land is suitable for the purpose of the MIDC. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the decision taken by the concerned authorities. 17.It is also the contention of the petitioner that the lands belonging to influential persons are released from acquisition. The concerned authorities have to decide which land is suitable for the purpose of the MIDC. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the decision taken by the concerned authorities. 17.It is also the contention of the petitioner that the lands belonging to influential persons are released from acquisition. He has given the names of nine persons in the writ petition who, according to him, are very influential and their lands are released from acquisition. However, it has to be noted that 175 Hectares land from village Bolhegaon is released from acquisition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the entire area belongs to these nine persons. It may be that the lands belonging to these nine persons happen to be in that area of 175 Hectares. Merely by showing that these persons are holding some posts, the petitioner cannot make out the case of discrimination or mala fide. 18.There is nothing on record to show that any of the Government officers or officers of the MIDC had mala fide intention against the petitioner. There is also nothing to indicate that all those persons whose lands were released from acquisition were influential persons either having political or economic influence. On the contrary, it appears that after taking into consideration the report made by the Collector, on 15-5-1978, and after considering the representation made by the various land owners, decision was taken by the Government to release the land from acquisition. So, in this respect also, the petitioner cannot challenge the acquisition. 19.The petitioner has contended that he would become landless, if the land is acquired. As it is, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner holds any other land except Survey Nos. 96 and 97. So, there may be some truth in the contention. However, there is no specific rule that under no circumstances the land be acquired if the land holder is going to be landless. Only guideline is issued that, as far as possible, land should not be acquired, if the landowner is going to be landless after acquisition. 20.In the present case, the lands Survey Nos. 96 and 97 belonging to the petitioner are adjacent to the southern boundary of the land in possession of the MIDC. The lands Survey Nos. 61, 62, 65 and 66 are situated to the west of the lands Survey Nos. 96 and 97. 20.In the present case, the lands Survey Nos. 96 and 97 belonging to the petitioner are adjacent to the southern boundary of the land in possession of the MIDC. The lands Survey Nos. 61, 62, 65 and 66 are situated to the west of the lands Survey Nos. 96 and 97. While the land Survey No. 67 is situated to the east of lands Survey Nos. 96 and 97. So, if other lands are being acquired, then it becomes quite natural and proper to acquire these two survey numbers of the petitioner also, to have one contiguous peace of land for the purposes of MIDC. So, merely because the petitioner is going to be landless, the acquisition cannot be struck down. 21.Learned Counsel for petitioner has also argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 1, did not apply his mind while passing the order dated 5-9-1986. He first communicated various objections raised by the land owners to the Chief Land Rehabilitation Officer, MIDC, Mumbai, by his letter dated 24-6-1985. Learned Counsel for petitioner has filed compilation "B" at the time of arguments, and the letter is at page No. 48 of the Compilation "B". He thereafter wrote the letter dated 22-7-1986 to the Chief Executive Officer, MIDC, Mumbai, copy of which is at Exhibit "F" at page 47 of the writ petition, and informed how it was not proper to acquire the land of the petitioner and other land owners. Thereafter, again he wrote the letter dated 28-7-1986 to the Chief Executive Officer, MIDC, bringing to his notice his earlier communication and sought directions from him regarding further action. This letter dated 28-7-1986 is at page 54 of Compilation "B. 22.Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that the respondent No. 1, Sub-Divisional Officer, is authorised to take decision in the matter and he has to take decision by applying his mind. He cannot seek directions from the officers of the MIDC. He is acting as per the directions issued by the officers of the MIDC. Then any order passed by him is an order without application of his mind. Learned Counsel for petitioner has further pointed out that the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC, by his letter dated 29-8-1986, informed respondent No. 1, that the lands Survey Nos. He is acting as per the directions issued by the officers of the MIDC. Then any order passed by him is an order without application of his mind. Learned Counsel for petitioner has further pointed out that the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC, by his letter dated 29-8-1986, informed respondent No. 1, that the lands Survey Nos. 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 96 and 97 cannot be released from acquisition, and that the respondent No. 1 should complete the procedure of acquisition. This letter is at page 55 in Compilation "B", and on receipt of this letter, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order dated 5-9-1986 which is at Exhibit "G" at page 50 with the main petition. On reading this order, according to the learned Counsel for petitioner, it will be clear that the order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer only because he was directed by the officers of the MIDC to pass such order. 23.Learned Counsel for petitioner has further argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He himself once had come to the conclusion that the land should not be acquired for the MIDC, and then he changed his opinion, not because there were any changed circumstances, but only because there was a direction to that effect from the officers of the MIDC. Learned Counsel for petitioner furnished the Compilation "B" on 12-6-2000 in the Court and the entire copy of the compilation was served on the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the Counsel for the respondent, on 11-6-2000 itself. The matter was heard on 12-6-2000 and 13-6-2000. Then, at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it was adjourned till 19-6-2000 for the State to meet with certain queries which arose because of the documents produced in Compilation "B". The genuineness of these documents is nowhere challenged by either of the respondents and there is also no explanation with respect to the contents of these documents from either of the respondent. 24.Even then, can it be said that the order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer without applying his mind? By the letter dated 24-6-1985, he brought to the notice of the officers of the MIDC, the various objections raised by the land owners and called for the say of the officer of the MIDC. 24.Even then, can it be said that the order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer without applying his mind? By the letter dated 24-6-1985, he brought to the notice of the officers of the MIDC, the various objections raised by the land owners and called for the say of the officer of the MIDC. It is already pointed that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no business to write letter dated 22-7-1986. He has gone out of way in writing that letter to the Chief Executive Officer, MIDC, suggesting that the lands should not be acquired. It does not appear that he himself wrote to the higher authorities of the State Government suggesting that the land should not be acquired. It appears that he was playing in the hands of the owners of the land and, therefore, he wrote that letter dated 22-7-1986. 25.So far as letter dated 28-7-1986, it can be said that it is not at all happily worded. The Sub-Divisional Officer was not expected to seek directions from the MIDC. He was expected to obtain say of the MIDC with respect to the objections raised by the land owners. Merely because in this letter he had sought directions from the officers of the MIDC, it cannot be said that he had ceased to act by applying his own mind. As there was no early reply from the officers of the MIDC in response to the letter dated 24-6-1985, he had again written the letter dated 28-7-1986. 26.The letter dated 29th August 1986 from the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the MIDC only indicates that the MIDC was not willing to release the land from acquisition and wanted that the acquisition proceedings should be completed. So, in a way, this was the say given by the MIDC to the objections raised by the land owners and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent No. 1, passed the order dated 5-9-1986. He has mentioned about the written objections raised by the land owners and the say given by the MIDC and then has mentioned that in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 32 of the MID Act, read with Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Rules, 1962, he was overruling the objections raised by the land owners and he directed that the notification under section 32(1) of the MID Act be published for acquisition of the land. 27.It may be that the wisdom dawned upon the respondent No. 1 at a late stage, that he had to take action on his own and he cannot seek directions from the MIDC. So, after considering all the circumstances, he has passed this order dated 5-9-1986. It cannot be said that this order was prompted by the officers of the MIDC. Only thing is that the respondent No. 1, who had expressed his opinion in letter dated 22-7-1986, ultimately come to the conclusion that the objections were not sustainable and, therefore, he overruled the objections and directed that the notification under section 32(1) of the MID Act be issued. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the mistakes committed by the respondent No. 1 in drafting the letter dated 28-7-1986 to say that the respondent No. 1 has passed the order dated 5-9-1986 without applying his mind. The acquisition cannot be challenged on that ground. 28.Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that the provisions of section 32(2) of the MID Act are not at all followed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 before publishing notification under sub-section (1) of section 32 and, therefore, the acquisition is illegal. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 32 of the MID Act, read as follows:--- "(1) If, at any time in the opinion of the State Government, any land is required for the purpose of development by the Corporation, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, the State Government may acquire such land by publishing in the Official Gazette a notice specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required, and stating therein that the State Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section. (2) Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the State Government shall by another notice call upon the owner of the land and any other person who in the opinion of the State Government may be interested therein, to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The State Government shall also cause public notice to be given in the manner laid down in section 53 and in the Official Gazette. The State Government shall also cause public notice to be given in the manner laid down in section 53 and in the Official Gazette. Provided that, if the land proposed to be acquired falls within a Scheduled Area then the State Government shall before such acquisition consult,- (i) the Gram Sabha and the Panchayat concerned if the land is falling within the area of one Panchayat; (ii) the concerned Gram Sabhas and the Panchayat Samiti if the land is falling within the area of more than one Panchayats in the Block concerned; (iii) the concerned Gram Sabhas and the Zilla Parishad if the land is falling within the area of more than one Block in the district concerned; Such consultation shall be carried out in the manner as may be laid down by the State Government by issuing a general or special order in this behalf: Provided that the decision taken by the majority of the Gram Sabhas concerned by passing a resolution in the above matters shall be binding on the concerned Panchayat Samiti or the Zilla Parishad as the case may be. Explanation- for the purposes of these provisos,- (i) the expression "Gram Sabha" or "Panchayat" and "Scheduled Areas" shall have meanings, respectively, assigned to them in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958; (ii) the expressions "Panchayat Samiti" and "Zilla Parishad" shall have the meanings, respectively, assigned to them in the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961." (3) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner of the land and by any other person interested therein, and after giving such owner and person an opportunity of being heard, the State Government may pass such orders as it deems fit." 29.So, before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the MID Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer to whom the powers are delegated, under Rule 28 of the Rules under the MID Act, has to follow the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32. Individual notices are required to be given to the land owners and they are required to be heard personally before coming to the conclusion that the land should be acquired. Besides giving individual notices, under sub-section (2) of section 32, the Sub-Divisional Officer is expected to issue public notice in Official Gazette as well as as per the provisions of section 53 of the MID Act. Besides giving individual notices, under sub-section (2) of section 32, the Sub-Divisional Officer is expected to issue public notice in Official Gazette as well as as per the provisions of section 53 of the MID Act. Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that there is nothing on record indicating that the public notice was issued as per section 53 of the MID Act. 30.The matter was adjourned at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader to make a definite report as to whether there was public notice published as per section 53 of the MID Act. Section 53 of the MID Act reads as follows:--- "Every public notice given under this Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder shall be in writing over the signature of the officer concerned and shall be widely made known in the locality to be affected thereby affixing copies thereof in conspicuous public places, within the said locality, or by publishing the same by beat of drum or by advertisement in a local newspaper, or by any two or more of these means, and by any other means that the officer may think fit." The public notice has to be published by affixing copies thereof in conspicuous public places, or by publishing it by beat of drum or by advertisement in a local newspaper. Any two of these three modes are to be adopted by the authorities. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has stated that there is no record available to show that the notice was published as per the provisions of section 53 of the MID Act. He, however, argued that when the writ petition was filed in the year 1987, no such stand was taken by the petitioner and, therefore, no attempt was made by the respondent to preserve the record regarding such publication. This question of fact, whether there was publication as per section 53 of the MID Act, at this distance of time, cannot be settled only because now such record is not available with the respondents. 31.We find much substance in this contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. This question of fact, whether there was publication as per section 53 of the MID Act, at this distance of time, cannot be settled only because now such record is not available with the respondents. 31.We find much substance in this contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. In the writ petition itself, no stand is taken by the petitioner, that there was no public notice as per the provisions of section 53 of the MID Act and, therefore, the respondents had no occasion to meet that contention either by making a statement in the affidavit or by producing on record relevant evidence to show that the provisions of section 53 were complied with. Nearly 13 years after filing of the writ petition, the respondents are not able to bring on record, the fact that the provisions of section 53 were complied with. This is purely question of fact and the petitioner cannot take advantage of helplessness of the respondents by suddenly raising the point that the provisions of section 53 of the MID Act were not complied with. No basis is created by the petitioner to raise such point in the argument. 32.However, so far as publication of notice in the Official Gazette, the position is altogether different. No doubt, notices were issued on 14-11-1983 and the notices were personally served on the land owners. They were also given personal hearing. But the section requires that this notice also should be published in the Official Gazette and that publication must be before the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the MID Act. The purpose of issuing such notice in the Official Gazette is to make known the intention of the State Government that the land was to be acquired. There may be certain persons interested in the land who may not be known to the Government for issuing the personal notices and such persons should not be deprived of their right of raising objection. So, the publication of notice in the Official Gazette is provided for in sub-section (2) of section 32 of the MID Act by specifically amending the Act in the year 1967. 33.In this respect, the letter from Section Officer, Government of Maharashtra, dated 17th March 1978, addressed to the Collector, Ahmednagar, which is at page 11 of the Compilation "B", also must be referred to. 33.In this respect, the letter from Section Officer, Government of Maharashtra, dated 17th March 1978, addressed to the Collector, Ahmednagar, which is at page 11 of the Compilation "B", also must be referred to. In this letter, specific directions are given that the public notice has to be given in the manner laid down in section 53 of the MID Act and also in the Official Gazette. The concerned officers were very well aware by this letter about the provisions of law which in ordinary course must be known to the concerned officers i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector. Later on, the personal notices dated 14-3-1983 were served on the land owners personally. However, this notice was not gazetted immediately by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This notice was published in the Gazette dated 25th September 1986. Copy of that Gazette is at pages 58 and 59 of the Compilation "B". 34.Learned Assistant Government Pleader was specifically directed to see whether at any earlier date, this notice dated 14th November 1983, as per the provisions of section 32(2) of the MID Act, was published in the Official Gazette. However, it appears that only for the first time on 25th September, 1986 the notice dated 14th November 1983, under section 32(2) of the MID Act was published. No doubt, the notice under section 32(1) is published in the Government Gazette on 16th October 1986. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, has argued that the notice under section 32(2) was published earlier in the Gazette dated 25th September, 1986 than the notice under section 32(1) and, therefore, there was due compliance of the provisions under section 32(2) of the MID Act. 35.The fallacy of the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is writ large on the record. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order on 5-9-1986 holding that the objections were overruled and the notice under section 32(1) be published. So, before publishing the notice in the Gazette under section 32(2), already the decision was taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding the objections raised by the land owners and for publishing the notification under section 32(1) of the MID Act. So, before publishing the notice in the Gazette under section 32(2), already the decision was taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding the objections raised by the land owners and for publishing the notification under section 32(1) of the MID Act. 36.The notice published on 25th September 1986, inter alia mentions that anybody who desire to have personal hearing about the objections to be taken for acquisition of the lands may approach within one month from the publication of the notice on any working day within 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. before the Sub-Divisional Officer personally or through a duly authorised representative. So, naturally it is expected that when the notification is published on 25th September, 1986, no further orders would be passed till the expiry of one month from the date of that notification i.e. 25th September 1986. However, even before 25th September, 1986, i.e. on 5-9-1986, the Sub-Divisional Officer had passed the final order regarding publication of notice under section 32(1) of the MID Act. So, this notice dated 25th September 1986 is merely an eye wash. 37.The further notification under section 32(1) is published in the Government Gazette dated 16th October, 1986, that means, prior to the expiry of the period of one month from 25th September, 1986. So, the record itself makes it clear that the notice under section 32(2) was not published in the Government Gazette as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the MID Act. After passing the final order and directing for publication of notice under sub-section (1) of section 32, the notice under sub-section (2) of section 32 of the MID Act was published in the Government Gazette. 38.Learned Counsel for petitioner argued that it may be that the land owners were given opportunity of being heard personally as per the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the MID Act. But what about those other persons who had not received personal notice but who were interested in the land. They could not raise any objection. They had no opportunity to raise any objection because already the final order was passed on 5-9-1986 and notification with respect to that final order was published on 16th October 1986 prior to the expiry of the period of one month. They could not raise any objection. They had no opportunity to raise any objection because already the final order was passed on 5-9-1986 and notification with respect to that final order was published on 16th October 1986 prior to the expiry of the period of one month. 39.Learned Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court, in the matter, (Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India and others)1, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 789. Their Lordships have observed in para 18, as follows:- "It is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided, will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice." 40.Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that it was expected from the respondent No. 1 to publish public notice under section 32(2) of the MID Act, in Official Gazette, at least one month before passing the final order in the matter. But that was not done. The notice is published in the Official Gazette after passing of the final order and, therefore, there is no compliance of the provisions of section 32(2) of the MID Act. The action taken is drastic because the land belonging to the petitioner is being acquired by the State Government. 41.However, the other question to be considered is whether any prejudice is caused to the petitioner because of the failure on the part of the Sub-Divisional Officer in not publishing the public notice under section 32(2) of the MID Act, in Official Gazette prior to 5-9-1986. The circumstances indicate that the petitioner had received the personal notice. He had filed his written objections. Not only that, he was given the personal hearing and then only the final order was passed. Some unknown persons might have suffered because of the non-publication of the public notice in the Official Gazette before passing of the final order. But that person has not come before the Court to challenge the final order. The person who has come before the Court, had received the due notice. Some unknown persons might have suffered because of the non-publication of the public notice in the Official Gazette before passing of the final order. But that person has not come before the Court to challenge the final order. The person who has come before the Court, had received the due notice. He was heard and then the final order was passed. The petitioner has not suffered because of the latches on the part of respondent No. 1. Not only that, the land owners of land Survey Nos. 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 96 and 97 also had not raised any objection in this respect. 42.So, even if there is some substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner, that the provisions of section 32(2) were not duly complied with as the petitioner personally has not suffered any injustice, he cannot challenge the acquisition merely because some unknown persons might have suffered because of the mistake committed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This is not a public interest litigation. But this is a litigation arising because of the contention of the petitioner that his individual rights are violated. 43.The petitioner has not taken specific stand in the petition challenging the acquisition on the ground that the public notice under section 32(2) of the MID Act was not published in Government Gazette before passing of the order dated 5-9-1986 and so the acquisition of the land is illegal. Such stand is taken only at the time of argument, 13 years after filing of the petition. It means, that the petitioner by way of an afterthought is clinging on technicality. Here, it has to be noted that the order was passed on 5-9-1986 and the petitioner filed the petition on 31-3-1987 only after receiving the notice for handing over possession. So, for 6 months he kept quiet even when he was aware that the notices were published in the Gazette as per the given dates. There again he did not raise this plea in the petition. So, now he cannot challenge the acquisition on such ground. 44.The petitioner was served with the notice and he was heard. So, for 6 months he kept quiet even when he was aware that the notices were published in the Gazette as per the given dates. There again he did not raise this plea in the petition. So, now he cannot challenge the acquisition on such ground. 44.The petitioner was served with the notice and he was heard. The principles of natural justice, so far as the petitioner is concerned, are fully followed and, therefore, he cannot challenge the acquisition merely on the ground that some other person might have suffered because of the mistake committed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, in not publishing the public notice in the Official Gazette at the proper time so, even if there is some fault in the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer in publishing the notice in the Official Gazette, as per section 32(2) of the MID Act, that will not come to the help of the petitioner to say that the order dated 5-9-1986 be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, hold that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 45.Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. -----