Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition the petitioner questions the validity of a notification under S.3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (Act 21 of 1962). 2. The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Precision Instruments Project, Palghat, published the preliminary notification under S.3 (1) for the acquisition of lands covering an extent of hundred acres. The notification stated that the land is needed for a public purpose for the establishment of an Automobile Tyre Project at Walayar, Pudusseri, Palghat. The submission of the petitioner is that the Government are not proposing to acquire the land for the above purpose but for the purpose of a company and therefore the notification ought to be quashed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that the acquisition is for a limited company, namely, the Bharat Tyre and Rubber Company Limited, Ernakulam, incorporated under the Companies Act and falling within the definition in S.2 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act and that in respect of such an acquisition it is the provisions in Part VII and not Part VIII of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act which are applicable. The learned Government Pleader submitted that even though the notification under S.3 (1) was that the land was needed for the purpose of establishing a project there is nothing which precludes the authorities from showing that the land is needed not for a project but for a company. It was submitted that the word 'Project' as used in the notification was not used in the sense in which that term bears in the Act. 4. Under Part VIII of the Act a project area is defined as meaning an area included in a project to which the provisions of this Part apply and such other areas as may be notified by the Government as required for the expansion and development of that project. S.45 states that the provisions of Part VIII shall apply to such projects as the Government may by notification in the Gazette specify; and under S.47'Project purpose' means any purpose connected with the project to which the provisions of Part VIII apply. S.45 states that the provisions of Part VIII shall apply to such projects as the Government may by notification in the Gazette specify; and under S.47'Project purpose' means any purpose connected with the project to which the provisions of Part VIII apply. The submission of the Government Pleader is that the project mentioned in the notification under S.3(1) is not a project within the meaning of that term in Part VIII of the Act but a project within the generic sense of that term and therefore the notification is valid. The question for decision in this petition is whether the notification having been made on the basis that the land was needed for the establishment of a project, it is open to the Government now to say that the land is needed for a company and that 'project' as used in the notification was not intended to bear the connotation which that term has under the Act. 5. It was submitted for the petitioner that the object of specifying that the land is needed for the purpose of a project or a company is to enable the person whose land is sought to be acquired to put forward his objections and that it is only if that person knows the purpose of the acquisition that he can intelligently put forward his objections under S.5. If the land is needed for a company the objections to be put forward are not the same as those which may be put forward if the land is needed for a project. In the Kerala Land Acquisition Manual issued under the Authority of the Government of Kerala it is stated at page 126, Chapter XXV, that in an enquiry under S.5 it will be open to the objector to urge (1) that the purpose of the acquisition is not within the scope of S.43 of the Act, (2) that the particular land notified is not the best adapted for the purpose intended or (3) that its area is greater than is actually required for the purpose. It is only if the person whose land is acquired knows that the acquisition is for a company that it will be open to him to urge these objections. 6. It is only if the person whose land is acquired knows that the acquisition is for a company that it will be open to him to urge these objections. 6. It is also clear from the form of the notification (see Form 3a at page 150 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Manual) that the notification should mention 'the particular public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. If the right given under S.5 to a person whose land is sought to be acquired to urge his objections is to be an effective right it is necessary that the person should know before hand for what purpose the land is proposed to be acquired. It is only then that he can urge his objections. 7. The learned Government Pleader referred me to the ruling in Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay (AIR. 1960 S. C. 1203) and submitted that it is not necessary that the particular public purpose should be mentioned in the notification under S.3(1). Para.11 of that judgment is as follows: 'But the main attack on the constitutionality of the proceedings in question was based upon the notification under S.4, which is in these terms: XX X X No. LTH.15-59/42051-H Whereas it appears to the Government of Bombay that the lands specified in the schedule hereto are likely to be needed for the purpose of the company, viz., for factory buildings etc. of M/s. Mukund Iron and Steel Works Limited, Bombay; it is hereby notified under the provisions of S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), that the said lands are likely to be needed for the purpose specified above. It is argued that in terms the notification does not state that the land sought to be acquired was needed for a public purpose. In our opinion, it is not absolutely necessary to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings that that statement should find a place in the notification actually issued. The requirements of the law will be satisfied if, in substance, it is found on investigation and the appropriate Government is satisfied as a result of the investigation that the land was needed for the purpose of the company, which would amount to a public purpose under Part VII, as already indicated " 8. Considering the facts in that case I am not satisfied that the ruling would apply here. Considering the facts in that case I am not satisfied that the ruling would apply here. In the case dealt with by the Supreme Court the purpose for which the land was needed was specified in the notification. The only defect pointed out was that it was not stated that the land was needed for a public purpose. The Supreme Court said that it is not necessary to state in the notification that the land is needed for a public purpose if on investigation it is found by the appropriate Government that the land is needed for the purposes of a company which would amount to a public purpose under Part VII. I cannot apply that principle in this case. 9. I am of opinion that the notification under S.3 (1) impugned in this case does not satisfy the requirements of law. I would therefore quash the notification. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Allowed.