( 1 ) THESE appeals are preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and others against the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing a batch of writ petitions and quashing three notifications issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The three notifications concerned herein are the notifications dated 8/05/197 5/08/1975 and 19/02/1975. The writ petitions have been allowed relying mainly upon the earlier decision of that Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohammad Yousef, (1990) 2 Mad LJ 149 (which has since been affirmed by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Mohammed Yousef, (1991) 4 SCC 224 : (1992 AIR SCW 1674) and the decision of this Court in Munshi Singh v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCR 937 : (AIR 1973 SC 1150 ).

( 2 ) THE first and the main ground assigned by the High Court for quashing the said notifications is that the public purpose stated therein is vague and that on the date of issuance of the said notifications, there was not existing any final and effective scheme prepared under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act. Two other grounds assigned by the High Court in support to its decision are (i) that there was an undue delay in passing the award after the issuance of the declarations under Section 6 and (ii) non-complaince with clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition Rules framed by the State Government in the course of enquiry under Section 5-A.

( 3 ) THE public purpose stated in the three notifications is "for the implementation of housing schemes to meet the demands made by various sectors of the population under `kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Further Extension Scheme", "for the creation of a new neighbourhood known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Part II Scheme" and "for increasing housing accommodation for the development of South Madras neighbourhood" respectively. Enquiries under Section 5-A were held that on the basis of reports submitted in that behalf, declarations under Section 6 were made sometime in the year 1978. Awards were passed in the year 1983. The writ petitions from which these appeals arise were filed in the year 1982 and in 1983-one of them even later.

( 4 ) SRI Harish Salve, learned counsel for the appellants, disputed the correctness of the judgment under appeal on the following grounds: the impugned judgment of the High Court is contrary to more than one Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court. the principle of the decision in Mohammed Yousef, (1992 AIR SCW 1674) or, for that matter. of Munshi Singh, (AIR 1973 SC 1150) has no application to the facts herein; it is not necessary that there should be a final and effective scheme prepared under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act (Housing Board Act) before lands are acquired for the purpose of the Housing Board; lands can be acquired by the Government even where there is no final and effective housing scheme on the date of the notification; in these cases, the schemes were indeed initiated prior to the issuance of Section 4 notifications and were finalised after the issuance of the said notifications. The public purpose stated in the notifications is not vague. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents-writ petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the said grounds inasmuch as they neither filed objections in the enquiry held under Section 5-A, nor did they raise these grounds at any time before the issuance of declaration under Section 6. They did not make this grievance even after the issuance of Section 6 declaration for a number of years. Only when the awards were about to be passed (and in some cases after the passing of the awards) were these writ petitions filed. On the ground of laches and acquiescence alone, the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed. So far as the post-declaration delay assigned by the High Court as one of the grounds for its decision is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the said delay, if any, is not fatal in