Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONERS in this writ petition are assailing the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of construction of houses for M. P. Housing Board. ( 2. ) IT is averred in the petition that petitioner No. 1 Gulabi Nagar griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit is a Housing Society and has entered into an agreement to purchase the land from petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 on 21-8-86. Notification under Section 4 was published in the M. P. Gazette, dated 27-1-89 and declaration under Section 6 was published in M. P. Gazette, dated 27-10-89 under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioner No. 1 entered in agreement (Annexure D), dated 21-8-1986 to purchase the land, petitioner No. 1/society is formed with a view to provide houses to the poor persons. ( 3. ) IT is further submitted by the petitioner that proceedings under urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 were initiated against holders, certain land was declared surplus. The holders have prayed for exemption under Section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. The provision of urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act reveals that act is having the overriding effect as provided under Section 42 of the Act. The land belonging to petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 ought to have been exempted and matter is pending before the State Government for final decision for grant of exemption under Section 20. Though the land was declared surplus but no final statement has been issued under Section 9 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. ( 4. ) PETITIONER further submits that invocation of Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is bad in law, after six months of issuance of Notification under Section 4, declaration under Section 6 was issued, earlier acquisition of these lands was withdrawn as per order dated 5-3-1988, there-after the permission was given on 26-11-88 to invoke the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act. The petitioner is challenging the invocation of Section 17, mind has not been applied as required under Section 17 (4) and Government has granted exemption to other holders under Section 20, exemption ought to have been granted in case of petitioners also. The petitioner is challenging the invocation of Section 17, mind has not been applied as required under Section 17 (4) and Government has granted exemption to other holders under Section 20, exemption ought to have been granted in case of petitioners also. It is further submitted that purpose of the petitioner No. 1/society is also to provide the houses to the members of the society, by not deciding the application for exemption under section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling Act the respondents have acted arbitrarily, double standards have been applied, same yardsticks have not been followed. ( 5. ) IN the return filed on behalf of respondents it is pointed out that they have adopted the return filed in M. P. No. 1708/90, an additional return has been filed for the specific purpose of present writ petition. In the return filed in M. P. No. 1708/90, it is pointed out that land was declared surplus and petitioner No. 2 had no authority to enter in any agreement to transfer the property to petitioner No. 1 as such the entire petition is frivolous and not maintainable. Petitioner/society has no locus standi to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. Land is required for the public purpose by the Housing Board to provide houses as per the scheme of the Housing Board, 60% of the houses are reserved for economically weaker sections and shelterless people. Element of public utility in the scheme is involved. Housing is an urgent need as such invocation of urgency clause is proper, enquiry under section 5-A has been rightly dispensed with. Petitioner is bound by the outcome of the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings, acquisition of land has been properly made, no interference is required. ( 6. ) SHRI AG. Dhande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners has submitted that since proceedings were earlier initiated and it was decided not to invoke urgency clause as reflected in order dated 5-3-88, later grant of permission to invoke urgency clause is bad in law. His further submission is that Section 42 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act has overriding effect, thus, when proceeding under Section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling Act for grant of exemption to the land of the petitioner Nos. His further submission is that Section 42 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act has overriding effect, thus, when proceeding under Section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling Act for grant of exemption to the land of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 was pending consideration before the State Government, it was not open to invoke the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to make acquisition of the land. This has an effect of defeating the intendment of the overriding effect created by Section 42 of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 since repealed. He has further submitted that purpose of petitioner No. 1 society is to provide houses to the members. Thus, that has to be equated with the purpose for which the acquisition is being made by respondents as such it is not going to serve any useful purpose as the purpose of the society/petitioner no. 1 is the same. ( 7. ) SHRI Ashok Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for respondents/state has contended that provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act do not come in the way of acquisition of land made under the Land Acquisition Act, the two Acts have separate purpose. It is further submitted that land has not been exempted in case of petitioner and was declared surplus and petitioner no. 1/society has no right to file the present writ petition and maintain it being simply holder of an agreement to purchase the land that too entered when ceiling proceedings were pending. ( 8. ) THE first submission of learned Counsel for petitioner is that the provision of Land Acquisition Act could not be invoked in view of Section 42 of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. Section 42 of the Urban Land ceiling and Regulation Act reads as under:- "42. Act to override other laws.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent there within any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court, Tribunal or other authority. " ( 9. ) SECTION 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act deals with the power to exempt. " ( 9. ) SECTION 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act deals with the power to exempt. This power is exercisable by the State Government if land is held in excess of the ceiling limit and the State Government is satisfied either on its own motion or otherwise, that, having regard to the location of such land, the purpose for which such land is being or is proposed to be used and such other relevant factors as the circumstances of the case may require, it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, that Government may, by order, exempt, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, such vacant land from the provisions of the Chapter. ( 10. ) AS the fact stands the land has been declared surplus, only after the land is declared surplus, Section 20 comes into play, land was found to be surplus, there is no order passed by the State Government under Section 20 exempting the land held by petitioner Nos. 2 to 5. No order has been shown to exist of exemption under Section 20 as on today on the other hand State, government has taken a decision to acquire the land for the purpose of M. P. Housing Board which manifest the intention of the State Government which is writ large in the acquisition which was undertaken by issuance of Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6. Thus, I find that Section 42 is not applicable in the instant case as no order under Section 20 has been passed, on the other hand under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, land has been declared as surplus and has been acquired under Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of housing as per decision of State Govt. ( 11. ) THE Apex Court in S. S. Darshan Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1996 SC 671 , has held that acquisition of the land under Land acquisition Act, Section 4 can not be challenged on the ground that purpose of acquisition is different than permitted under master plan. The provision of act being different, Land Acquisition has to be seen in the context of Land acquisition Act only. The Apex Court has held in Para 11 thus :- "11. The provision of act being different, Land Acquisition has to be seen in the context of Land acquisition Act only. The Apex Court has held in Para 11 thus :- "11. The last submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the user of the acquired land shown in the master plan being different, there can not be a conversion of the user except in accordance with the provisions for making the change in the land use. It is not a case of change of user by the owner of the land but one of acquisition by the State under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act, 1894. This argument also had no merit. " ( 12. ) THAT apart, in my opinion, the overriding effect given by Section 42 is for giving overriding effect to the purpose enumerated under Urban Land ceiling and Regulation Act, I do not find any repugnancy is created by the acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act. Land Acquisition Act is having a different intendment and is an independent Act. Even otherwise there is no order in existence in favour of petitioners of grant of exemption under Section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hence Section 42 of Urban land Ceiling Act does not come into play. ( 13. ) COMING to the next submission as to invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17, same can not be faulted as housing is an urgent need and is a national requirement. Simply by the fact that on earlier occasion decision was taken on 5-3-88 not to have resort to the provision can not come in the way when need is shown to be urgent, requirement is for purpose of housing which is a national need. In Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U. P. , AIR 1999 sc 436 , it was held that purpose of acquisition for invocation of urgency clause is also one of the relevant considerations. In Narayan Govind Gavate Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1977 SC 183 acquisition of land for residential purpose has been held to be a public purpose. In Ishwarlal Girdharlal Joshi etc. Vs. State of Gujrat and another, AIR 1968 SC 870 , question arose about the satisfaction of Government on the question of urgency. In Narayan Govind Gavate Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1977 SC 183 acquisition of land for residential purpose has been held to be a public purpose. In Ishwarlal Girdharlal Joshi etc. Vs. State of Gujrat and another, AIR 1968 SC 870 , question arose about the satisfaction of Government on the question of urgency. It was held that not only the protection under Article 166 (2), but, there was also presumption of regularity of the official act. In Sanjay Gandhi Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha maryadit Vs. State of M. P. , AIR 1991 MP 72 , it was observed that the Court can not sit on the satisfaction of the authority. In Gurunam Singh Vs. State of punjab, AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 62, it was held that the urgency is a matter of subjective satisfaction. In Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, (2000) 7 SCC 296 , it was held that satisfaction can be justified if it exists on record and need not be reflected with reference to every piece of particular land and declaration under Section 6 is enough. ( 14. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that considering the nature of the purpose of acquisition and in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, invocation of Section 17 (1) is proper. ( 15. ) YET another aspect for consideration is whether petitioner No. 1 is having the right to maintain the writ petition. Land has not been purchased by petitioner No. 1, he is having an agreement only in his favour. A Division bench of Allahabad High Court in 1992 All. CJ. 1248 has held that a person having agreement to sale can not be said to be person aggrieved, hence can not challenge acquisition of land. It has been held by the Apex Court in U. P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another Vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. , Lucknow and others, 1996 AIR SCW 743 = (1996) 3 SCC 124 , that a purchaser after issuing of Notification under Section 4 can not challenge the land acquisition. In this case property has not been purchased by petitioner no. 1 only an agreement to purchase exist. However, question is not of much importance in instant case as the owners petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are also parties to the writ petition. In this case property has not been purchased by petitioner no. 1 only an agreement to purchase exist. However, question is not of much importance in instant case as the owners petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are also parties to the writ petition. As merely holder of an agreement can not challenge the acquisition. Thus, the submission raised that purpose of petitioner No. 1/soci-ety is housing and the same has to be treated at par with the purpose of acquisition for Housing Board is of no avail. It is established that land is required for the Housing Scheme by the M. P. Housing Board in which 60% houses are reserved for economically weaker sections. The land of co-operative society can also be acquired is laid down by Apex Court in Kendriya Karamchari sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. and another Vs. The New Okhla Industrial development Authority and others, AIR 1988 SC 1 . ( 16. ) IT is contended that final statement under Section 9 of Urban land Ceiling Act was not issued as such it can not be said that declaration of land as surplus has attained finality; it is clear that land was declared surplus, petitioners were seeking exemption which has not been granted by the State so far no order under Section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling Act has been passed that apart land acquisition is under Land Acquisition Act which is independent of ceiling proceedings and even if proceeding under Ceiling Act is pending that does not come in the way of acquisition of land under Land Acquisition act. ( 17. ) RESULTANTLY, I find no merit in the petition. It is dismissed. No order as to costs. Security, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners. Misc. Petition dismissed.