JUDGMENT

DR A.S. ANAND, J.- On April 12, 1984, the Collector Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, issued a notification, purporting to be under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) to the effect that land detailed in the schedule attached thereto was required for a public purpose. The notification further discloses that the State Government being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act were applicable in respect of the land required to be acquired, it dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act.

2. The schedule to the notification provided as follows:

"SCHEDULE

Particulars of Land

Distt.

Tehsil

City/Village

Approxi-

mate

area in

hectares

Authorised

Officer under

Section 4(2)

Detail of

public

purpose

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Mandsaur

Mandsaur

Mandsaur

2.29

Executive

Engineer

M.P. Hous-

ing Con-

struction

Board, Rat-

lam"

Residen-

tial

3. The aforesaid notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, issued on April 16, 1984. In the schedule to that declaration, khasra numbers of the proposed land with respective areas were provided and in column (2) requiring the mention of "public purpose" for which the land is required it was stated for "housing scheme of Housing Board". In column (3), it was stated that "the plan of land may be inspected in the office of the Collector".

4. The respondent, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the validity of the notification issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act as also the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act on various grounds. The main thrust of the challenge was that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was vague and invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act and that recourse to the urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the Act could not be had since the land was not "waste or arable", which is the sine qua non for exercising powers under Section 17(1) of the Act. The challenge to the notifications succeeded and the acquisition proceedings were quashed by the High Court by the judgment impugned before us by the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board through this special leave petition.

5. Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the special leave petition are as follows:

The Executive Engineer of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Construction Division on September 3, 1983 addressed a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer, Madhya Pradesh Housing Construction Board, Bhopal, stating therein that during the tour of the Chairman of the Board, he had found private land measuring 2.29 hectares situate near the bus stand in Mandsaur city, to be "absolutely suitable for the construction of buildings and shops under self-financing scheme" and requested that the said land be acquired on priority basis. On receipt of this letter, the Land Acquisition Officer, addressed a communication, on February 15, 1984, to the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Housing Department, with a request to forward the matter along with his recommendation to the Collector, Ratlam for favour of "publication of a notification in the M.P. Gazette for the acquisition of the said land under Sections 4(1) and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act". On April 12, 1984, the Collector Mandsaur, M.P., issued the notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act and followed it by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on April 16, 1984.

6. Mr D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant assailed the findings of the High Court by characterising the same as based on "hyper-technicalities". Argued Mr Thakur that since acquisition of land had been made at the request of the Housing Board of a large extent of land, the absence of providing detailed particulars of the land or the locality where it was situate, could not vitiate the notification, more so when sufficient particulars had been provided in the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act whe