A. P. LAVANDE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. ( 2 ) RULE. By consent heard forthwith. ( 3 ) BY these petitions, the petitioners challenge notices issued under section 5 (1) of Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 ("the Act" for short) issued by the collector of Amravati requisitioning the lands of the petitioners. Although, in the petitions several contentions have been raised and several reliefs have been claimed, learned counsel for the petitioners have restricted their main challenge to the notices issued under section 5 (1) of the Act on the ground that no prior notice and hearing was given to them. ( 4 ) BRIEFLY, the facts leading to filing of the present petitions are as under : in July - August 2007 there were heavy rains leading to flood in Amravati district due to which several families were affected and in order to rehabilitate those families, the Government decided to requisition the lands. The power conferred upon the State Government in terms of section 5 (1) of the Act has been delegated to the Collector in terms of section 15 of the Act. The Collector, amravati passed orders dated 24-11-2008 under sections 5 (1) of the Act requisitioning the lands belonging to the petitioners. The Order dated 24-11-2008 impugned in Writ Petition No. 128/2009 reads thus : writ Petition Nos. 5426, 5427, 5486 of 2008 and W. P. Nos. 4, 5, 38, 128, 2115 and 2335 of 2009 decided on 21-8-2009. (Nagpur) "order there were heavy rains and flood in Amravati District in July, July, august 2007 due to which families were affected and in order to rehabilitate those families according to Government Resolution of revenue and Forest Department No. CLS-11-05/pn 239/m-3 (VKG)dated 21-5-2008, this office has passed orders No. Section-24/na/rehab/kv-2145/08 dated 26 May 2008 directing the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer to acquire land. Process of land acquisition for acquiring 0. 90 H. R. land from Gat Nos. 325 to 327 total area 3. 12 H. R. of Mouza Mahuli-Dhande/husainpur, Taluka daryapur, District Amravati for permanent rehabilitation has been started. However, some time would be required for completing the process of acquisition. Therefore, in order to make the plots available immediately to the affected persons, I, Dr. 90 H. R. land from Gat Nos. 325 to 327 total area 3. 12 H. R. of Mouza Mahuli-Dhande/husainpur, Taluka daryapur, District Amravati for permanent rehabilitation has been started. However, some time would be required for completing the process of acquisition. Therefore, in order to make the plots available immediately to the affected persons, I, Dr. Purushottam Bhapkar, (IAS), Collector hereby pass orders in exercise of powers conferred upon me under section 5 (1) of the Bombay Land requisition Act, 1948 and declare that following lands in the Schedule be requisitioned from the date of taking possession of the said land. SCHEDULE tahsil Daryapur, Mouza Mahuli Dhande/husainpur, Gat No. /survey no. : 0. 30h of Gat No. 325, 0. 30h of Survey No. 326, 0. 30h from survey No. 217, total requisitioned lands are 0. 90 H. Names of Agriculturist : 1) Shri Bapurao Deorao Sakhare 2) Shri Abdul Sahid Abdul Majid 3) Shri Abdul Sahid Abdul Majid (Office Copy signed by Hon'ble Collector)Sd/-For Collector, Amravati". ( 5 ) SIMILAR orders were passed by the Collector, Amravati in respect of the properties of the other petitioners. In some of the matters, according to the respondents, possession has been taken by the Circle Officer pursuant to the orders passed by the Collector. The State Government has also initiated land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners. ( 6 ) ALTHOUGH, as stated above, several contentions have been taken in the petition, the petitioners have restricted the main challenge to the notices issued under section 5 (1) of the Act on the ground that the petitioners were not given notices and hearing before passing the impugned orders. It is the case of learned counsel for the petitioners that although section 5 (1) of the Act in terms, does not provide for any show cause notice or any hearing before making of the order, such provision has to be read by necessary implication since the impugned orders deprive the petitioners right to hold and enjoy the property. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, since the petitioners are deprived of their right to hold and enjoy the property, the petitioners ought to have been given notices and they ought to have been heard before passing the impugned orders. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, since the petitioners are deprived of their right to hold and enjoy the property, the petitioners ought to have been given notices and they ought to have been heard before passing the impugned orders. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Madan Gopal Agarwal vs. District Magistrate, Allahabad and others, AIR 1972 SC 2656 and Division Bench judgment in Rajendralal Shadilal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1980 Bombay 261. ( 7 ) MR. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 5426/2008 has also urged that by the impugned order the petitioner has been deprived of the entire property held by her rendering her landless. ( 8 ) PER contra, Mr. Sambre, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and submitted that the requisitioning of lands is a temporary measure and having regard to the purpose for which properties of the petitioners were requisitioned under section 5 (1) of the Act, the question of giving notices and hearing to the petitioners does not arise inasmuch as the same would frustrate the very purpose of passing the impugned orders. Mr. Sambre further submitted that the judgment in the case of Madan Gopal agarwal was delivered prior to coming into force of 44th amendment to the constitution of India, when right to hold and acquire property by a citizen was a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same is not applicable in the present cases. ( 9 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the record and judgments relied upon. ( 10 ) BEFORE appreciating the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to quote section 5 (1) of the Act. "section 5 (1) : If in the opinion of the [state] Government it is necessary or expedient so to do, the [state] Government may by order in writing requisition any land for [any public purpose] : provided that no building or part thereof wherein the owner, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, has actually resided for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the order shall be requisitioned under this section. " ( 11 ) SINCE reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Gopal Agarwal (supra), it would also be appropriate to quote section 3 of U. P. (Temporary)Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 ("the Act of 1947" for short) which was considered in the said judgment. Section 3 of the Act of 1947 reads thus : "if in the opinion of the District Magistrate it is necessary to requisition any accommodation for any public purpose, he may, by order in writing requisition such accommodation and may direct that the possession thereof shall be delivered to him within such period as may be specified in the order provided that the period so specified shall not be less than 15 days from the date of the service of the order : provided further that no accommodation which is in the actual occupation of any person shall be requisitioned unless the District magistrate is further of the opinion that suitable alternative accommodation exists for his needs or has been provided to him. " ( 12 ) THE scope of section 3 of the Act of 1947 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Madan Gopal Agarwal (supra) in the above case. The appellant challenged order dated 4th October 1969 passed by the district Magistrate requisitioning the house of the appellant to provide accommodation to Shri P. N. Singh, Geologist, Directorate of Geology and mining, U. P. by filing the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the validity of the order on several grounds. One of the grounds of challenge was that the order was made without issuing notice and without giving him hearing. The petition was dismissed summarily by the Division Bench of the high Court. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Apex Court. The apex Court held that although section 3 of the Act of 1947 does not contain an express provision for notice and hearing before making of the requisition order, such a provision has to be read therein by necessary implication. The object of the provision is to requisition an immovable property which deprives the owner of the property of the right to hold and enjoy the property as he likes. The object of the provision is to requisition an immovable property which deprives the owner of the property of the right to hold and enjoy the property as he likes. The Apex court held that right to hold and enjoy the property is a cherished right and although the Act is a temporary measure, but it had remained on the statute book for 25 years and having regard to the acute scarcity of accommodation in the state, and an accommodation once requisition was ordinarily not expected to be restored early to the owner, it was difficult to hold that the legislature would have intended to deprive him of his cherished right to hold and enjoy the property without notice and hearing. ( 13 ) A bare perusal of section 5 (1) of the Act and section 3 of the Act of 1947 discloses that two provisions are in pari materia except that section 3 deals with requisitioning of a building for accommodation for any public purpose whereas section 5 of the Act deals with not only requisitioning of the building but also the land for public purpose. ( 14 ) AS stated above, the Apex Court has held that the right to hold and enjoy the property is a cherished right and, therefore, the legislature could not have intended to deprive the owner of the property to deprive him of his right without notice and hearing. No doubt, the judgment was delivered by the Apex court on 10-10-1972 much before 44th Constitutional Amendment was effected. On 20-6-1979 44th Constitutional Amendment was brought into force by deleting Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution which gave right to citizen to hold and acquire the property and Article 300a was introduced providing that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In our considered opinion, the argument of Mr. Sambre that the ratio laid down in the case of Madan Gopal Agarwal would not be applicable after 44th Amendment to the Constitution has no merit inasmuch as in the said judgment the Apex Court did not place reliance upon Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution for holding that requisition order issued under section 3 of the Act of 1947 was vitiated. The apex Court has observed that the right to hold and enjoy the property is a cherished right and as such the legislature could not have intended to deprive him of his cherished right without notice and hearing. Therefore, the fact that by 44th amendment to the Constitution of India, Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution was deleted and the right to hold property was made only a constitutional right in terms of Article 300 A of the Constitution would neither abrogate nor mollify the binding precedent of the judgment of the Apex Court in Madan Gopal Agarwal's case. In our considered opinion, the ratio laid down in the said would continue to have the same binding effect, notwithstanding 44th Amendment to the constitution of India. ( 15 ) NO doubt, section 3 of the Act of 1947 pertains to requisitioning of residential premises for public purpose and in the present case, we are concerned with the requisitioning of the lands belonging to the petitioners for public purpose but the same would not make any difference inasmuch as it cannot be disputed that both residential premises and the lands are "property" and as such the ratio laid down by the Apex Court would be applicable to the requisitioning of not only the residential premises but also the lands. In the case of Rajendralal shadilal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. the Division Bench of this Court dealing with the case of requisitioning of residential building held that before issuing notice under section 5 of the Act, the authority was required to hold inquiry although there is no express provision to give show cause notice or hearing. The Division Bench arrived at this finding after placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Gopal Agarwal (supra ). ( 16 ) IN view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the case of Madan Gopal Agarwal is squarely applicable in the present case and as such the notices issued to the petitioners under section 5 (1) of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside for want of notice and hearing to the petitioners before issuing the impugned orders. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. ( 17 ) INSOFAR as argument of Mr. On this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. ( 17 ) INSOFAR as argument of Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5426/2008 that by the impugned order, the petitioner has been deprived of her property rendering her landless is concerned, we do not deem it necessary to deal with the same on merits since the orders passed under section 5 (1) of the Act are liable to be quashed on the ground of absence of notice and hearing. However, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is relevant and supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that notice and hearing ought to be given to the owner of the land before making the requisition order inasmuch as in a given case the owner of the land can satisfy the authority that if his land is requisitioned under the Act he would be rendered landless and that some other land belonging to some other person and suitable for the purpose of requisition can be requisitioned without rendering such person landless. This is an additional ground on which notice and hearing has to be read in section 5 (1) of the Act before making the order under section 5 (1) of the Act. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we quash and set aside the impugned orders under section 5 (1) of the Act issued to the petitioners. It is made clear that all other contentions of the rival parties are kept open. The Competent Authority i. e. Collector is free to give notice and after hearing the petitioners pass appropriate orders under the Act in relation to the properties of the petitioners, if he deems fit and proper. ( 19 ) IN some of the petitions the respondents claim that the possession of the lands of the petitioners have been taken. In such cases, the respondents shall deliver back the possession of these lands to the respective petitioners within a period of two weeks from today. ( 20 ) RULE is made absolute in all the petitions in the aforesaid terms with order as to costs. C. C. expedited. Rule made absolutely