IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the newspaper before it was published in the Gazette is only an irregularity which did not vitiate the validity of notification.
2. If notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is challenged then entire time taken from the date of filing of writ petition till its final decision has to be excluded and limitation of one year would start thereafter only for making of declaration u/s 6 of the Act.

ORDER

These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court made on July 17, 1989 in Writ Appeals Nos. 897-896/89 dismissing the appeals in limine and confirming the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated March 30, 1989 made in Writ Petition Nos. 5316-35/89.

2. The appellants have challenged the validity of the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, (for short, the "Act") acquiring 80 acres of land in favour of the second respondent - N.T.I. House Building Cooperative Society. Notification under Section 4(1) was published on February 23, 1989. Enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted. The appellant participated in the enquiry. Before the declaration could be taken up, the appellants filed the writ petition in March 1989 challenging the validity of the notification. Before the learned single Judge, the appellants had taken five grounds of objections as enumerated in para 2 of the judgment of the learned single Judge. He dealt with each of the points separately and negatived the same. The Division Bench summarily dismissed the appeal. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

3. It is strenuously contended for the appellants that since some of the lands of the appellants were acquired, one on March 2, 1973 for defence purposes and second on July 28, 1988 for the HMI House Building Cooperative Society, the acquisition of the lands under this notification is mala fide and, therefore, is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention. Providing house sites for construction of houses for the members of the second respondent, Cooperative Society registered under State Cooperative Societies Act, is a public purpose is not in question and cannot be questioned in view of the enlarged definition of public purpose under Section 32(c)(vi) of the Act as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984. Therefore, so long as providing house sites to the members of the Cooperative Society is a public purpose , the contention that on earlier occasion also some of the lands belonging to the appellants were acquired for such or some other public purpose, cannot be held to be mala fide.

4. It is next contended that alternative lands are available and the lands in question are not fit for construction. That question was gone into by the learned single Judge and was negatived. It is a question of fact in each case. The serious contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that while the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on February 23, 1989 the newspaper publication thereof had come to be made prior thereto, i.e., on February 1, 1989 and, therefore, the mandatory requirement under sub-section (1) of Section 4 has not been complied with. It is further contended that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality. These two contentions were not raised before the learned single Judge; even otherwise, we find that there is no force in these contentions. It is stated in the counter affidavit and also in the record of the Section 5-A enquiry produced by the appellant which would clearly indicate that after the notification was published, it was published in one of the newspapers on February 1, 1989 and substance thereof was published in the locality on March 20, 1989. The second publication in the newspaper could not be made for the reason that it was already published prior to the publication of the notification in the Gazette. The question is : whether the procedure adopted in publishing the notification in the local newspaper before it was actually published in the Gazette is in violation of the requirement under Section 4(1)?

5. It is true that normally publication in the newspapers would be preceded by a publication in the Gazette notification. It would appear that in this case while sending the notification, which was approved by the Government for publication in the Gazette, simultaneously direction was