The Government can split up lands belonging to a single owner and apply different procedures for acquisition, provided that the lands are capable of severance and the urgency provisions are applied only to waste or arable land.

VENKATADRI, J. :- These writ appeals are directed against the judgment of Srinivasan J. which dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants to quash the notifications and declarations in respect of their lands acquired by the State of Madras, in connection with the housing schemes in the City of Madras.

2. The appellants are the owners of the lands bearing S. No. 2/1 of an extent of 11.26 acres, S. No. 3/1 of an extent of 6.91 acres and S. No. 4 of an extent of 13.37 acres in Kalikundram village within the Corporation limits of the City of Madras. The entire extent of land has been enclosed by a fence, and is alleged to be used and treated as a compact block. The Government of Madras, in pursuance of the housing scheme to meet the serious problem of acute housing shortage in the City, have been acquiring lands in and around the villages of Urur and Kalikundram. Thus, in the course of their acquisition, the Government proposed to acquire the lands belonging to the appellants. The Government, therefore, issued two separate notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, one in respect of S. Nos. 2/1 and 3/1 together, and another in respect of S. No. 4. In regard to S. Nos. 2/1 and 3/1, they called for objections from the owners of the land. In regard to S. No. 4, they were of opinion the lands were waste or arable and therefore they applied the provisions of S. 17(4) of the Act, thereby dispensing with the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act. The appellants put forward their objections in regard to S. Nos. 2/1 and 3/1 but they were rejected. As the enquiry under S. 5-A was dispensed with, in respect of S. No. 4, the Government issued the Declaration under S. 6 of the Act on 16-1-1981, but in respect of S. Nos. 2/1 and 3/1, the said declaration was issued only on 6-6-1962, that the lands were required for a public purpose. The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the notifications and declarations of the Government, on the ground that they were vitiated by material irregularities and error apparent on the face of the record. They contended that the original notifications under S. 4(1) of the Act were not addressed to all the owners or persons interested in the land, that the notification under S. 4(1) in respect of S. No. 4 was bad as it dispensed with the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act, as the lands are neither waste nor arable nor required for purposes mentioned in S. 17(2), that as the appellants are the owners of S. Nos. 2/1, 3/1 and 4, the Government erred in splitting the land into separate blocks and issuing separate notifications applying different procedures in the process of acquisition, viz, applying the ordinary provision in respect of S. Nos. 2/1 and 3/1 and applying the urgency provision in respect of S. No. 4, that the lands sought to be acquired are all agricultural lands which had been leased for a period of ten years, that they themselves had taken steps to develop the land into a model agricultural farm, that they have received an offer for 18 lakhs of rupees, that in any event they themselves were prepared to design and lay out the plots and nave them sold to the public at cheaper rates if the Government dropped the proposed acquisition and that therefore the notifications and declarations were vitiated by material errors and were liable to be quashed.

3. The State of Madras has filed a counter denying all the allegations.

4. When these writ petitions came for final hearing before Srinivasan J, the learned Judge held that the lands in question were acquired for a public purpose, that it was not necessary for the concerned authorities to specify the names of all the persons interested in the land, that it was for the persons interested in the land to come forward and file their objections to the Section 4(1) notification, that it was not for the appellants to direct which lands had to be acquired, that it was a matter left to the entire discretion of the authorities concerned, tha