ORDER. 2. Since identical grounds have been raised in all these cases, the same are being disposed of by the following common order.

Transcription

1 MANU/TN/0099/1999 Equivalent Citation: 1999(2)CTC17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Writ Petition Nos to 6801 of 1997 and W.M.P. Nos , and of 1997 and to of 1998 Decided On: Appellants: K. Ayyamuthu Vs. Respondent: The State of Tamil Nadu Hon'ble Judges/Coram: P. Sathasivam, J. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, Senior Counsel for Mr. V. Ayyathurai, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. K.V. Venkatapathy, Adv. General Mr. V. Selavanayagam, Adv. Mr. R. Gandhi, Senior Counsel Mr. R.G. Narendhiran, Adv. Subject: Property Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Land Acquisition Act, Section 3, Land Acquisition Act, Section 4(1) & 6 Cases Referred: Shankerbhai Mahijibhal v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R Guj. 67; Jainulabudeen and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others; A. Vijayarangam and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 WLR 518; Scindia Employees Union v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1996 (10) SCC 150; The Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, v. The Coimbatore Diocese Society, 1997 WLR 777; K. Raveendranathan Pillai v. State of Kerala, A.I.R Ker. 19 Case Note: Property - acquisition proceedings - Sections 3, 4 (1) and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, writ petition to quash acquisition proceedings - entire extent acquired quite necessary for fulfilling requirements of Pollution Control Board, directions of Government of India and for construction of projects - once specific authorisation published in gazette conferring power of Collector on Special Tahsildar mere omission in vernacular daily would not affect acquisition proceedings - if petitioners really prejudiced by non specification of Section 3 (c) in vernacular dailies they should have taken steps to quash notification on that ground within reasonable time - formal defect in publication mere irregularity and does not vitiate validity of notification - petition dismissed. ORDER P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to quash those proceedings on various grounds. 2. Since identical grounds have been raised in all these cases, the same are being disposed of by the following common order. 3. For the convenience, I shall refer the facts in Writ Petition No of It is stated that the villagers of Pottaneri including the petitioners are small fanners and the agriculture is sole source of their livelihood. The entire lands of Pottaneri are subject matter of impugned land acquisition for the purpose of establishing coke-oven plant by a public limited company by name Southern Iron and Steel Company Ltd., (SISCOL) copromoted by Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) and Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. (LMW). An extent of 523 acres of land had been acquired already in or about for the said Company; out of which an extent of 120 acres alone was 1

2 utilised by it so far and rest of the lands are used for plantation of Teak Tree which is a long term crop which fact would go to show that there is no immediate need of any more land for the said Company in near future. It is further stated that the requisitioning body viz., third respondent in their letter dated to drop the subject acquisition proceedings. Similar request was made to TIDCO on which is followed by another communication dated , accordingly the award enquiry was also adjourned since. While so, the first respondent issued four Government Orders dated 28.e.1995 in G.O. 2(d) No.66, 67, 68 and 69 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") mentioning the entire land of the villagers are needed for setting up of a Coke-oven plant by SISCOL measuring an extent of 156 acres situate in Pottaneri village. The substance of Section 4(1) notification was published in two dailies which are not having circulation in the locality. Further paper publication did not contain true version of form as it was silent as to delegation of power to act as a Collector. In such circumstances, having no other effective remedy they approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions. 4. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries Department has filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners. It is stated that the Managing Director, SISCOL has applied for acquisition of hectares of land in Pottaneri village, Mettur Taluk for Coke-oven plant. The Government approved the proposal of TIDCO for implementing the Coke Oven Project by SISCOL in G.O.Ms.No.701 Industries Department dated As per the Government order land acquisition proceedings were initiated. Section 4(1) notification was published in the Government Gazette on in dailies and in the locality. Section 5-A enquiry notice was served on the land owners and 5-A enquiry was conducted on and The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on and in dailies and in the locality on and respectively. The award enquiry was posted for hearing on and it was adjourned to due to administrative reasons. 5. It is further contended that all the three stages of the Project viz., Pig Iron Plant has been completed and commenced production, the sinter plant is expected to commence soon and construction work relating to steel melting and steel rolling mill is going on and it is expected to commence the production by end of According to the provisions of the Pollution Control Board, the extent of 30 per cent of the total area should be utilised for raising green trees to arrest the air pollution. As such about 180 acres of lands out of 520 acres will have to be utilised for raising green patch. The remaining extent is quite necessary for the plant. Electricity sub-section, water reservoirs, railway siding, roads, rest houses etc., Regarding two letters sent by the third respondent for dropping the acquisition proceedings, it is stated that, it is only a signal to the Government to accelerate the land acquisition proceedings and not for any other purpose. The notification published contain all the informations which would facilitate the public and the landowners to know about the acquisition. Further, the land acquisition proceedings relating to Pig Iron Project was over when the acquisition for coke oven project reached 5-A enquiry stage. Therefore the Government had authorised the Special Tahsildar, Coke Oven Project to act as Collector under the provisions of the Act. The post is the same and the work done by the Special Tahsildar is only for the same applying body. Regarding authorisation of the Special Tahsildar, it is stated that in the form prescribed by the 2

3 Government for the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) powers have been vested with the persons appointed as Land Acquisition Officer to exercise the powers indicated under Section 4(2) of the Act. Under the same notification, the Special Tahsildar has been appointed as Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act. The substance of the notification is that the Special Tahsildar wilt exercise the powers indicated under Section 4(2) of the Act. There appears no need to publish the full version of the said notification. It is also not required for the public. What are all needed for the public have been furnished in the Tamil Version of the notification. It is further stated that, since the acquisition is for a public purpose and the mandatory provisions have been fully complied with, there is no merit in these writ petitions, accordingly they prayed for dismissal of the same. 6. The third respondent-requisitioning body has also filed similar and identical counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioners. 7. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for third respondent. 8. Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, after taking me through the entire acquisition proceedings has raised the following contentions: (i) Inasmuch as the third respondent has utilised only an extent of 120 acres out of an extent of 523 acres acquired for the very same purpose, the present acquisition of 156 acres is unnecessary and unwarranted. In other words, according to him, there is no need of any lands for the requisitioning body, accordingly the present acquisition is not warranted; (ii) Inasmuch as specific authorisation authorising the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) to function as Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act, is not find place in the Tamil newspaper, it is not open to the second respondent to proceed with the acquisition proceedings, accordingly the same are vitiated; (iii) The substance of Section 4(1) notification was not published in the locality, which is a mandatory proceeding accordingly the acquisition are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Advocate General for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for third respondent would submit that the entire lands, viz., 520 acres have been properly utilised for erection of the plants as well as for installation of Electricity sub-station, water reservoirs, railway siding, roads, rest houses etc., They also contended that, as per the directions of the Pollution Control Board an extent of 30 per cent of the total area should be utilised for raising green trees to arrest air pollution. Accordingly, the Government is convinced about the requirement of further lands for completion of the entire project. They also contended that, omission of specific reference under Section 3(c) in the publication in Dina Thanthi would not affect the acquisition proceedings. They further contended that, inasmuch as the acquisition of lands is for a public purpose and after declaration by the Government, it is not open to 3

4 this Court to go into the matter and take a decision, accordingly they prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 10. Regarding the first contention, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has highlighted that, initially an extent of 523 acres had been acquired in the very same village in or about for the said Company and out of which an extent of 120 acres alone were utilised by them so far and rest of the lands are used for plantation of coke-oven trees which is a long term crop which fact would go to show that there is no immediate need for the land in near future. If so, according to him the present action of the respondents in acquiring another 156 acres is unwarranted. In this regard, by pointing out Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act, he would contend that, only the actually required land alone is to be acquired and not the entire land. In order to appreciate his contention, it is better to refer Section 4(1) 6 of the Act. Section 4 - Publication of Preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon: (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification). Section 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose; (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2) that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-section (2). He very much emphasised the word used "likely to be needed" in Section 4(1) and "any particular land is needed" in Section 6. It is true that the Government is expected to acquire land only to the extent to be needed for public purpose and after enquiry it is open to the Government to confine it to particular land which is needed for a public purpose and proceed thereafter. In this regard, it is useful to refer the particulars furnished by the first respondent in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Industries Department. It is specifically stated that, all the three stages of 4

5 the project, viz., (i) Pig Iron Plant has been completed and commenced the production; (ii) Sinter plant is expected to commence soon; and (iii) construction work relating to steel melting and steel rolling mill is going on and it is expected to commence production by end of It is also stated that according to the directions of the Pollution Control Board the extent of 30 per cent of the total area should be utilised for raising green trees to arrest air pollution. The Pollution Control Board has also furnished specifications of plant to be planted for this purpose. Learned Advocate General has also brought to my notice certain conditions to be fulfilled by the third respondent Company, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest, dated Among other conditions, it is stated that, A green belt of adequate width and density should be developed using native plant species, within and around plant premises in consultation with State Forest Department. A norm of plants per ha may be followed. A minimum of 25% of the total land acquired should be developed as green belt. As per EMP about 40 ha. have been earmarked for green belt. Accordingly, the Government has undertaken planting of trees as directed around the factory side. In this manner about 180 acres of land out of total extent of 520 acres will have to be utilised for raising green belt. It is further seen from the information furnished by the respondents that, remaining extent is quite necessary for the plant, electricity substation, water reservoirs, railway siding, roads, rest houses etc., Accordingly, the entire extent already acquired is quite necessary for fulfilling the requirements of Pollution Control Board, the direction of Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest and also for construction of projects. After taking note of all the above aspects, the Government of Tamil Nadu in their letter No. 475 Revenue dated granted permission to hold the entire extent for the project purpose and. exempted under the provisions of Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, No doubt, the learned senior counsel by relying on a Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in Shankerbhai Mahijibhal v. State of Gujarat, MANU/GJ/0142/1981 : AIR 1981 Guj 67 as well as decision of the Apex Court reported in Jainulabudeen and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, MANU/SC/0743/1994 : [1994]3SCR899 would contend that the present acquisition is unwarranted. In the Gujarat case their Lordships in the Division Bench after referring Section 4 and 6 of the Act and after noting that there is no specific scheme by the Gujarat Housing Board to proceed further and also of the fact that no steps have been taken for publication of notification under Section 4(1) ultimately quashed the acquisition proceedings. Inasmuch as the entire 520 acres acquired in the year are being utilised and the respondents have furnished more details regarding their project and utilisation of the entire land, the Gujarat case is not applicable to our case. For the very same reason the decision of the Apex Court referred above also not helpful to our case. In such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the first contention. 11. Coming to the second contention, it is the specific grievance of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that, in the paper publication, particularly in Dina Thanthi there is no reference with regard to authorisation under Section 3(c) of the Act. It is true that, in the notification the Government have to authorise any Officer to perform the 5

6 functions provided under Section 4(2) as well as Section 3(c). Section 3(c) speaks about Collector- Expression "Collector" means the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act. Section 4 Sub-Clause (2) enables the Land Acquisition Officer or other officer 'authorised to enter upon land. Section 4(2): Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen: to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-soil; to do all other acts, necessary to ascertain whether the land is adopted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to make such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away and part of any standing crop, fence or jungle. There is no dispute that in order to complete the acquisition proceedings the Land Acquisition Officer or person authorised must be empowered to do all the provisions of the Act by specific authorisation by the Government. In 4(1) notification issued in Tamil Nadu Government gazette there is no specific authorisation by them under sub-section (2) of Section 4 and under clause (c) of Section 3. The relevant portion published in the gazette is as follows: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 4 of the the said Act, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby authorises the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Pig Iron Project, Mettur and his staff and Workmen to exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section: and, under clause (c) of Section 3 of the Said Act, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby appoints the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Pig Iron Project to perform the functions of the Collector under the Section 5-A of the said Act. In the notification published in Dina Thanthi it is true that authorisation under Section 3(c) is not specifically mentioned. The relevant portion is as follows: 6

7 (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Please write to if the vernacular matter is required.) By pointing out the above position, Viz., absence of specific authorisation authorising the second respondent to exercise and act as Collector under Section 3(c), it is contended that the entire acquisition proceedings is vitiated. In support of the said contention, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has very much relied on an unreported decision of P.D. Dinakaran, J. in Writ Petition No of 1992 dated and decision of K. Bakthavatsalam, J. reported in A. Vijayrangam and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 WLR 518. It is true that a similar question was considered by learned brother P.D. Dinakaran, J. in that decision. After considering the publication of 4(1) notification in the Gazette as well as in the newspapers the learned Judge has concluded. But, to hold an enquiry in pursuance of the notification under Section 4(1), the second respondent also ought to have been authorised under Section 3(c) of the Act, to discharge the duties of the Collector, for conducting the enquiry, as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. In the absence of any delegation or authorisation by the Government, authorising the second respondent to discharge the duties of the Collector, any act done or purported to be done by the second respondent on behalf of the Collector is, per se, illegal, and without jurisdiction, and therefore, it shakes down the very basis of the acquisition proceedings, assuming, said to have been built carefully at every stage. After holding so, quashed the entire acquisition proceedings on that ground. In order to appreciate the said contention, I once again refer that the authorisation under Section 4(2) as well as 3(c) were specifically mentioned in the notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Accordingly, it amply shows that the Government have specifically authorised the second respondent both under Section 4(2) and 3(c) of the Act. Without specific permission or Authorisation it would not be published in the Gazette. The only defect even according to the learned senior counsel is that, authorisation under Section 3(c) is missing in the notification published in Tamil daily (Dina Thanthi). It is also clear that, under Section 4 of the Act, whenever it appears to the appropriate Government any land is needed or likely to be needed or any public purpose that should be acquired in the manner indicated therein. Under Section 4(2) of the Act any Officer either generally or specifically authorised by the Government are given the powers to perform the functions mentioned under Section 4(2) of the Act. As stated earlier, there is no dispute that in the Gazette notifications published in our case there is a reference to the conferment of powers of the Collector on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition second respondent herein) under Section 3(c) of the Act. Though in the paper publication the conferment of the powers under Section 3(c) is not specifically mentioned, once the powers of Collector has been validly conferred on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) by a specific order by the Government, as seen from the Gazette notification, I am of the view that he would be empowered to perform the functions of the Collector under the provisions of Act. Mere omission in the vernacular 7

8 daily would not affect the acquisition Proceedings. (Italics supplied) At this juncture learned Advocate General has brought to my notice G.O.Ms.No.1317 Revenue dated Since the said Government order clarifies the position in dispute, the said order is extracted hereunder: G.O.Ms.No. 1317, Revenue, dated 27th September, 1986 Read Again: (i) G.O.Ms.No. 821, Revenue, dated 4th April, Read Also: (ii) From the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Lr.No.K.Dis.S/53929 of 1985, dated 21st October, ORDER 1. The Forms 2A and 2E prescribed in the G.O. first read above and incorporated in Appendix XII in pan IV of the Land Acquisition Manual and Appendix XII to Chapter VII of the Revenue Standing Orders, Volume II, the Land Acquisition Officer is authorised to exercise the powers conferred by Section 4(2) of the Act. In cases where urgency provision is invoked, the present forms give rise to some ambiguity as they require appointment of Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to perform the functions of the Collector to conduct 5-A enquiry while the next para dispenses with 5-A enquiry. 2. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has stated that a reading of clause (c) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act shows that it is not for the purpose of performing the functions under Section 5-A of the Act alone, an officer is appointed as Collector but also to perform all other functions of a Collector under the said Act. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration has therefore suggested that the expression "Section 5A of occurring in Forms 2-A and 2-B are not necessary and that they may be deleted As requested, I have carefully perused the said Government order. It clearly shows that there is no necessity to mention the conferment of powers of the Collector on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) to perform the functions of Section 5-A of the Act and once the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) has been vested with the powers of the Collector he can perform all the functions of the Collector under the provisions of the Act. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General as well as Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for third respondent, the question whether such powers have been conferred on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) has to be examined with reference to the records and when in the gazette notification there is reference to the conferment of powers of the Collector on the Special Tahsildar, non-mentioning of the same in the vernacular paper, particularly in "Dina Thanthi" would not take away the powers conferred on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) under the Provisions of the Act. In other words, when such conferment is there in the records and the same have been 8

9 correctly shown in the gazette notification, mere omission with regard to Section 3(c) in the vernacular paper would not affect the subsequent proceedings as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. (Italics supplied). The clarification mentioned above was not brought to the notice of P.D. Dinakaran, J. As already stated once the powers of the Collector are conferred on the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) he would be entitled to perform the functions of the Collector under the provisions of the Act including the powers of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. In any event the difference in the wordings between the gazette notification and the paper publication would not vitiate the land acquisition proceedings as it is only a procedural irregularity. Further more, the purpose is concerned with the particulars regarding the purpose for acquisition, extent, survey number etc., and there is no specific requirement under the statutory provision to mention the conferment of powers of the Collector in all the notifications. On this ground, the decision of P.D. Dinakaran, J. in Writ Petition No of 1992 is not applicable to the facts of our case. 12. Learned senior counsel has also very much relied on the decision of K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. reported in A. Vijayarangam and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 WLR 518. The perusal of the said decision clearly shows that there was no authorisation at all either under Section 4(2) or under Section 3(c) and both were absent in the gazette notification as well as in the vernacular dailies. It is also clear from the said decision that there is no specific conferment of power in favour of the Land Acquisition Officer in the said case. In the absence of such particulars in the said decision. I am of the view that the decision of K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. is also not helpful to the petitioners case. In our case there is no dispute that specific authorisation by them under Section 4(2) and under Section 3(c) is available in the records and rightly mentioned in the Gazette notification, omission regarding Section 3(c) is only in the vernacular daily. In such circumstances, I reject the second contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 13. Regarding the third contention, by pointing out that only the substance of Section 4(1) notification was published in the locality by tom-tom and no details regarding affixture in the Office of the Tahsildar and Collector in Form III-A notice, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that, the substance of 4(1) notification has not been made any consolence with the mandatory provisions and requirements of the Act and Rules made thereunder and therefore liable to be quashed. In support of the said contention learned senior counsel has also relied on several decisions. There is no dispute that the publication of substance of 4(1) notification in the locality as provided under the Rule is a must and failure to do the same would vitiate the acquisition proceedings. Since the said proposition of law is clear, I am not referring all the decisions cited on this ground. Even on merits, it is admitted by the petitioners themselves [vide ground No. (e)] that the substance of the publication was published in the locality by tom-tom and only the other requirement as per Rule 2 - the substance of notification under Section 4(1) shall be published at a convenient place in the locality, copies therefore fixed up in the office of the Collector and Tahsildar. The files produced by the respondents 1 and 2 clearly show that the same was effected in accordance with the said Rules. In the light of the factual information, 1 am unable to accept the last submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 14. In the light of the above factual position, it is not for this Court to say that there was no need to acquire the petitioners lands for the project and the remaining land was sufficient. As rightly contended by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel appearing for, the third respondent, that there is no dispute regarding public purpose, accordingly publication of declaration under Section 6 accords conclusiveness to public purpose. While so, as observed by their Lordships in Scindia Employees Union v. State of 9

10 Maharashtra and others, MANU/SC/1591/1996 : (1996)10SCC150, whether a particular land is needed for public purpose or not is to be decided by the appropriate Government and the court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the appropriate Government. Following the said decision of the Supreme Court, Division Bench Of this Court in The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, v. The Coimbatore Diocese Society, 1997 WLR 777 their Lordships have observed, So long as the public purpose subsists, the exercise of the power of eminent domain cannot be questioned. Publication of declaration under Section 6 is conclusive evidence of public purpose. As pointed out by the learned senior Counsel for the appellant, the Government have exercised the power of eminent domain and had published the notification under Section 4(1) and after conducting enquiry under Section 5-A, declaration under Section 6 has been made, which is conclusive evidence of public purpose. The same view has been expressed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in K. Raveendranathan Pillai v. State of Kerala, A.I.R Ker. 19. Even regarding the objection that there is no specific authorisation under Section 3(c), admittedly none of the petitioners have raised any objection before the 5-A enquiry proceedings. If the petitioners are really been prejudiced by the non-specification of Section 3(c) in vernacular dailies they should have taken steps to quash the notification on that ground within a reasonable time. Even otherwise, a formal defect in publication is mere irregularity and it does not vitiate the validity of the notification. Regarding some defect in the 4(1) notification, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 134 of 1959 dated (Supreme Court on Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases pages 771) it is stated that the purpose of the notification under Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to find out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adopted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is only under Section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by the Government that the land with proper description and area so as to be identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a Company. What was a mere proposal under Section 4 becomes the subject-matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition under the Act. Hence, it is not correct to say that any defect in the notification under section 4 is fatal to the validity of the proceedings. It is also clear from the information furnished by the third respondent, the area acquired for the project has been assessed by the experts in soil nature, taking into account various process for which the acquired lands will be completely used. Therefore, according to them the entire area notified are essentially required for the successful completion of the project. Further, as already stated 1/3rd of the extent acquired will have to be set apart for fulfilment of conditions prescribed by the Pollution Control Board. It is also clear that, the coke oven plant is a must for implementation of Pig Iron Project in view of the excess cost involved in the import of industrial coke oven from foreign countries at the depletion of foreign exchange reserve to a large extent. The coke oven plant will serve not only for the conversation of local into industrial coke but also will be useful for the production of electricity. 15. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs. 6. In view of dismissal of the main writ petitions, connected WMPs. are also dismissed. Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd 10