JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioners want that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition Act, seeking to acquire the land in dispute, be quashed. 2. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 26th November, 1966, for the acquisition of an area of 13 biswas out of the plots Nos. 320, 321, and 322, situate in Mauza Bhswapur Kaladanda in the district of Allahabad. The purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired was for 'Sewage Pumping Station and quarters'. This notification directed that any person interested might, within 21 days, make an objection to the acquisition of the land, under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners did not file any objection. The enquiry was duly held and a report submitted. Thereafter, on 17th June, 1967, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. It directed the Collector of Allahabad to take orders for the acquisition of the land under Section 7 of the Act. It further provided that under Section 17 (1) of the Act, the Collector might take possession of any waste or arable land, forming part of the land sought to be acquired, within 15 days from the publication of the portion of the land sought to be acquired notice under Section 9 (1). bore any constructions of any kind when 3. The petitioners state that plots nos. 120, 321 and 322, which are 5 bighas and 2 biswas in area, form one composite unit, on which there are house, servant quarters and a stall for the electric motor and pumping set. The acquisition is challenged on several grounds. 4. It was urged that the acquisition was not for a public purpose. I fail to see any merit in this point. The notifications specify the purpose to be for constructions of Sewage pumping station and quarters for mechanics. It is not a private purpose. It is obviously a public purpose-a purpose for the welfare of the public in general. 5. The next point pressed was that the land in dispute was neither waste not arable, and consequently a direction under Section 17(1) could not validly be issued. The land sought to be acquired is only to 15 biswas out of the area of 5 bighasand a 2 biswas of the three plots. 5. The next point pressed was that the land in dispute was neither waste not arable, and consequently a direction under Section 17(1) could not validly be issued. The land sought to be acquired is only to 15 biswas out of the area of 5 bighasand a 2 biswas of the three plots. The petitioner have not, in their petition, made a clear averment that there were constructions on the specified portion, which is sought to be acquired. In paragraph 13 of the petition, it was stated that the land situated on all the four sides is appurtenant to the existing constructions and is actually used for vegetable garden. It has not been suggested that the open land, which was used as vegetable garden, was not a waste or arable land. In the counter-affidavit, it has been specifically asserted that the portion of the land under acquisition did not have any constructions, building or pumping set extra. It was free from all constructions, and was an arable land, IOn the rejoinder-affidavit, however an assertion has been made that the land under acquisition is not free from constructions. The Land over which a Pucca Gumti in which electric power exists is being acquired. This assertion is vague. It uses the present tense 'exist'. It does not suggest that the pucca Gumti was in existence on the date when the notification under Section 4 was issued. On the materials on the record, it cannot be held that the Petitioners have established that the particular portion of the land sought to be acquired bore any constructions of any king when the notifications were issued. It was being used to grow vegetables. It was clearly an arable land, to which Section 17(1) could legitimately be applied. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner laid stress on the situation of the land, namely, that it formed part of the single compound of the residential house of the petitioners and that it could not be of the petitioners and that it could not be detached so as to mark it out as waste and arable land. It was also urged that the acquisition of this area from out of the compound would mar the beauty as well as the value of the petitioners residential house and the rest of their compound. It was also urged that the acquisition of this area from out of the compound would mar the beauty as well as the value of the petitioners residential house and the rest of their compound. From this point of view, it was urged that the specified portion under acquisition could not be treated as waste and arable land. 7. In my opinion, there is no legal bar to the authorities to acquire a portion of a plot. If acquisition of such small potion damages the owner because of serving such land from the other lands, or injuriously affects his other property in any other manner, or if, it even affects his earning, he is entitled to compensation for these feature, under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The provision for paying compensation for these circumstances goes to show that a portion of an existing plot can validity be acquired even if it involves severance of the owner's other lands. The acquisition of 15 biswas out of the petitioner's compound cannot, therefore, be held to be invalid. If a small portion of land can be detached and subjected to acquisition proceedings, then in order to apply Section 17(1) to It, the nature and character of that particular portion of land can legitimately be looked into. If the area sought to be acquired is waste or arable, Section 17(1) can be attracted to it irrespective of the nature and character of the other land adjoining the area, which may happen to belong to the same owner. The fact that other adjoining land of the owners have construction thereon and consequently could not be treated as waste or arable, would not change the actual character of the land under acquisition. I am, therefore, unable to uphold the submission that the application of Section 17 (1) to the land acquisition was illegal. 8. The last point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the authorities did not enter into private negotiations with a view to purchase the land. No such assertion has been made in the petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, it has been stated that the petitioners were not prepared to give up the land by private negotiations and as such it became necessary to take acquisition proceedings. No such assertion has been made in the petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, it has been stated that the petitioners were not prepared to give up the land by private negotiations and as such it became necessary to take acquisition proceedings. In the report sent by the Additional Collector, it has been specifically stated that the purchase of the land proposed for acquisition by private negotiations was not practicable. It cannot, therefore, be said that the executive instructions in this regard, relied upon by the petitioners were disregarded. 9. It was then urged that the respondents made no effort to see whether any other suitable land in the vicinity was available and in that regard, certain Government directions have been violated. It has not been shown that such Government directions were enforceable or had statutory' force. Even on facts, this point has not been established. The report of the Collector specifically stated that there was no bunjar or uncultivated land within a radius of half a mile of the land proposed to be acquired. It cannot, therefore, be said that the authorities did not apply their mind to this aspect or disregarded any Government instructions. 10. No other point was pressed. The petition, therefore, fails and is according.