Judgment Narasimham, J. 1. The two petitioners claim to be owners of some plots of lands in mauza Hesag, close to Ranchi town. They challenged the validity of the land acquisition proceedings taken by the State of Bihar for acquisition of their lands and the lands of other persons in village Hesag and other neighbouring villages, such as. Kachnartoli, Kalyanpur and Hinoo. The facts have not been fully and correctly stated in the petition, and to ascertain the true facts one has to carefully scrutinise the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar by the Head Clerk of the Land Acquisition Office, Ranchi. On a careful scrutiny of all the papers the salient facts appear to be as follows. In connection with the well known Hatia Project, which was started mainly for the construction of the factories and other buildings of the Heavy Engineering Corporation at Hatia near Ranchi town, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Revenue Department of the Government of Bihar on a requisition sent by the Industries Department. The notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act") was issued on the 10th August, 1959 (Annexure A) by which it was stated that lands having an area of 1109.61 acres, situated within the villages of Hinoo, Kalyanpur. Kachnortoli find Hesag, were likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, "for additional land for Hatia township". It was also stated in the notification that the lands were "required to be taken by Government at the Public expense." The notification further stated that, in view of the urgency of the project, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.17 (4) of the Act, decided that the provisions of Sec. 5-A shall not apply. After hearing the objections the State of Bihar sometime in 1960 issued another notification under Sec. 6 of the Act (Annexure 1) by which they decided to acquire only 948.65 acres of lands in the said four villages. The description of the lands finally decided to be acquired, including their plot numbers, was given in the schedule attached to the notification. Some of these lands lay to the east of the railway line passing through Hatia township. The description of the lands finally decided to be acquired, including their plot numbers, was given in the schedule attached to the notification. Some of these lands lay to the east of the railway line passing through Hatia township. According to the State of Bihar, the arrangement was that the said lands, after acquisition, should be partly handed over to the administrative control of the Heavy Engineering Corporation and the rest should remain under the control of the Director of Rehabilitation, Hatia Project. The Heavy Engineering Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") informed the State Government that the lands acquired lying to the east of the railway line will not be required by them. But the State Government thought that those lands will be required for rehabilitation and re-settlement of those villagers whose lands in Hatia township had been taken away for the said project and who had thus been dispossessed and rendered homeless. Hence the Land Acquisition Department of Ranchi Collectorate continued the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands lying to the east of the railway line also and notices were issued to all persons interested under Section 9 of the Act. The claims of the parties were heard on the 17th February 1964 and 3rd March, 1964. It was also alleged by the State of Bihar that possession was actually taken by virtue of Sec.17(1) of the Act, though this is challenged by the petitioners. 2. The present dispute is in respect of lands in village Hesag lying adjacent east of the railway line which were stated by the Heavy Engineering Corporation, Hatia, as not being required for the Corporation. The petitioner has not given the exact plot numbers of their lands, though they were given additional opportunity to file a supplementary affidavit for that purpose. But nevertheless for the disposal of this application, it may be assumed that they were owners of some lands in village Hesag lying adjacent east of the railway line. 3. As far as I could make out from the statements made by the petitioners Counsel, the validity of the acquisition is challenged on the following grounds:- - (1) The entire acquisition was, in essence, for a Company, namely, the Heavy Engineering Corporation: and as the provisions of Part VII of the Act have not been complied with, the acquisition proceedings are null and void. (2) Even if the acquisition proceedings be held to be valid in respect of the lands required for the Heavy Engineering Corporation, the proceedings cannot be continued in respect of lands lying to the east of the railway line which, according to the statement of the Corporation, were not required for their purpose. If the Government therefore, wanted to acquire these lands for another purpose, namely, rehabilitation and re-settlement of persons rendered homeless due to the acquisition of their lands for the purpose of the Corporation, a separate proceeding should he initiated, and the State Government could not rely on the proceedings initiated in 1950 (Annexure A). 4. In my opinion, neither of these contentions can prevail. 7 have already referred to the fact that in the original notification of the 10th August. 1959, though the public purpose of the acquisition was stated to be "additional land for Hatia township", there is a reference to the "project" at the end of that notification. This project, according to the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Bihar, is the well known Hatia project. It was further stated in the affidavit that the project included not only the construction of the buildings and the lands actually required for the Heavy Engineering Corporation, but also other ancillary matters, such as rehabilitation of the displaced personnel. It will not be proper, therefore, to limit the project to the requirements of the Heavy Engineering Corporation only. Doubtless, if in the original notification (Annexure A) the public purpose had been described as the requirements of the Heavy Engineering Corporation only, there may be some Justification in the contention of Mr. Ghosh for the petitioners that the rehabilitation of displaced persons cannot be said to be part of toe saia purpose. But the notification does not refer to the Heavy Engineering Corporation at all. It only refers to the project (which in the context means the Hatia project) and also to the additional land required for Hatia township. There is, therefore, no reason why the statement in the affidavit of the State of Bihar that the acquisition was made by the Industries Department of the State of Bihar of all the lands included in the project, including the lands for rehabilitating displaced persons, should not be accepted. There is, therefore, no reason why the statement in the affidavit of the State of Bihar that the acquisition was made by the Industries Department of the State of Bihar of all the lands included in the project, including the lands for rehabilitating displaced persons, should not be accepted. It is true that after acquisition the State Government in the Industries Department handed over a large area to the administrative control of the Heavy Engineering Corporation which established its factories and buildings thereon. But some lands were still retained by the Government of Bihar and kept under the direct control of the Director of Rehabilitation of the Hatia Project. I must, therefore, hold that the acquisition was not for a Company so as, to require compliance of the provisions of Part VII of the Act. The State Government have undoubtedly the power to acquire lands for any project and then to deal with the acquired land in any manner they may consider advisable. It is not proper to say that the Hatia project must be limited only to the needs of the Heavy Engineering Corporation and cannot extend to other ancillary matters. 5. The second point is also practically dealt with in the preceding discussions. It is true that the Corporation informed the Government that they did not want lands lying to the east of the railway line. But as the needs of the Corporation and the needs of the Hatia Project are not necessarily identical, it does not Follow that once the Corporation informed the Government that some or the acquired lands were not needed by them those lands should be released from acquisition. The rehabilitation of persons displaced by the acquisition made for the Corporation is itself part of the project and will come within the public purpose mentioned in the first notification of the 10th August, 1959 (Annexure A), namely additional land for Hatia township. This land doubtless remained under the administrative control of the State of Bihar, acting through their Director of Rehabilitation. But it is not necessary to start a fresh acquisition proceeding in respect of these lands in view of the fact that the public purpose, namely, rehabilitation of displaced persons, must be held to be included in the original public purpose, namely, establishment of Hatia township in the Hatia project as mentioned in Annexure A. 6. But it is not necessary to start a fresh acquisition proceeding in respect of these lands in view of the fact that the public purpose, namely, rehabilitation of displaced persons, must be held to be included in the original public purpose, namely, establishment of Hatia township in the Hatia project as mentioned in Annexure A. 6. Here we are not concerned with the delay of nearly four years in issuing notice under Section 9 and taking possession of the disputed lands lying east of the railway line. That is a matter of administrative detail. The claims of the petitioners have been hoard and they will be given due compensation according to law. But I cannot accept the contention of Mr. Ghosh that either the acquisition was mala fide, or else that there was any invalidity in the various notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act for that purpose. The whole confusion appears to have arisen because Hatia project and Hatia township were taken to be intended solely for the Heavy Engineering Corporation and not for any other ancillary or subsidiary purpose also. 7. In the writ petition another notification (Annexure B) of the 28th August, 1959, was also referred to. But from Paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Bihar it appears that this notification has nothing to do with the lands in dispute in this case. This statement has not been controverted by any further affidavit filed by the petitioners. Hence it is not necessary to discuss in this application about the contents of Annexure B. 8. For these reasons the petition is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/- A.Ahmad, J. 9 I agree.