Failure to specify public purpose in a land acquisition notification renders it void ab initio.

1. All these petitions are directed against the land acquisition proceedings. Notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 16th June 1972 and was published in Gujarat Government Gazette on 13th July, 1972. It was in respect of four survey numbers with their sub-divisions. Therefore, as many as five petitions have been filed challenging that notification. Thereafter on 11th of April, 1974 Town Planning Scheme in respect of the area in question was finalized and notices to the parties were issued under the Bombay Town Planning Act. On 11th July, 1975 declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and it was published in Gujarat Government Gazette, Extraordinary, on the same day. On 15th October, 1979, an addendum to the declaration under S.6 was issued and it was published on 27th December, 1979. The addendum was issued because the survey numbers in respect of which the impugned acquisition proceedings were instituted had become a part of the Town Planning Scheme and had come to bear final plots numbers. By the addendum, therefore, in addition to the description of the land in terms of their survey numbers, description of the land in terms of final plots and the extent of the areas in terms of square metres was published. The extent of the area of the land under the impugned acquisition was in the first instance published in terms of the hectares.

2. Before we deal with the contentions which Mr. Patel has raised before us on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to state that the first four petitions were posted for hearing today and that the fifth petition was not posted for hearing. However, we are deciding the fifth petition with the consent of parties because the subject - matter of challenge in that petition is the same as in the other four petitions.

3. The first contention which Mr. Patel has raised is that the notification issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act was void ab initio and non est because it did not specify public purpose in respect of which the impugned land acquisition proceedings were instituted. In order to examine the contention which Mr. Patel has raised, it is necessary to reproduce the opening part of the first paragraph of that notification. It reads as under:
"Whereas it appears to the Government of Gujarat that the lands specified in the schedule hereto are likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz. for Gujarat Housing Board, it is hereby notified under the provisions of S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) that the said lands are likely to be needed for the purpose specified above."
According to Mr. Patel, a mere statement that it was required for a public purpose did not indicate any public purpose. The argument raised by Mr. Patel is eminently correct.

4. The second argument which he has raised is that reference to the Gujarat Housing Board is a reference to the instrumentality and not reference to the public purpose.

5. Mr. Takwani who appears on behalf of the respondents has argued that reference to the Gujarat Housing Board is a reference to the public purpose. It is difficult for us to uphold this argument because the public purpose and the instrumentality are two different things. An instrumentality cannot be substituted for a public purpose. That "instrumentality" and "public purpose" are different is made clear in the instant case by the declaration made under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It in terms stated that "the lands under acquisition were required for construction of houses by the Gujarat Housing Board." This specification in Col.4 of the declaration made under S.6 clearl