JUDGMENT

V.S. Sirpurkar, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Land owners - appellants have challenged the judgment of Allahabad High Court, challenging the dismissal of their petition, whereby they had challenged the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short). The lands comprised in Plot Nos. 542, 543 and 544 of Village Jainsinghpura Bangar, Mathura, U.P., measuring 6.6 acres were sought to be acquired by notification dated 20.3.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Ultimately, after the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, the notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 28.2.1992. It is an admitted position that in pursuance thereof, the award has also been passed.

3. Shri U.U. Lalit, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged before us that the High Court has not considered the major defects in the whole proceedings under the Act and more particularly, under Section 5A of the Act. The learned senior counsel vehemently argued that in pursuance of the notice inviting objections under Section 5A of the Act issued by Collector, Mathura, published in the newspaper “Amar Ujala” dated 21.3.1991, the appellants filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act on 18.4.1991 ventilating their grievances. The appellants had also sought for an opportunity of personal hearing and accordingly, Shri Brij Pal Bhargava had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on 3.5.1991; however, on that date, he was informed by the Land Acquisition Officer that no reply was filed by the Land Acquisition Department to the objections filed by the appellants. It was also informed that the officers were busy in election duty and, therefore, no hearing was possible on that date and the next date of hearing would be communicated to the appellants in due course. The learned senior counsel pointed out that thereafter, no date was ever informed to the appellants and ultimately, no hearing was given and instead the Government came out with the publication of the notification dated 28.2.1992 under Section 6 of the Act. The learned senior counsel asserted that in the absence of any hearing under Section 5A of the Act, the whole proceedings under the Act were rendered illegal. The learned senior counsel also relied on the affidavit of the lawyer of appellants in land acquisition proceedings asserting that no hearing opportunity was given to him.

4. This contention was very strongly refuted by Shri Dinesh Dwivedi and Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. and Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (respondent No. 3) respectively. The original report was produced before us. Both the learned senior counsel urged that on that day i.e. 3.5.1991, a further date was given and the parties were heard and it is only thereafter that an investigation report was prepared under Section 5A (2) of the Act. We have been taken through the said report wherein the objection on the part of the said Brij Pal Bhargava was the non-publication of the public notices under Section 4 of the Act. That contention was specifically refuted by pointing out that there was proper publication of the notices under Section 4 of the Act. The other objection raised was that the whole acquisition was done with mala fide intentions. It was suggested in the objection that about 150 acres of land for housing development was already acquired about 20 years back and yet no development had been made. It was also urged that the acquisition of the land for the planned housing development is not covered under the public purpose. It is apparent from the report that all these objections were dealt with holding that there was no question of any mala fides in the acquisition. It has also been held that the acquisition for the public purpose of planned housing development is very much a public purpose. The said acquisition has been justified on account of incr