JUDGMENT Shah. J.- Some of the questions raised in this appeal, and the question raised in Appeal No; 1102 of 1967 are common. Civil Appeal No. 2238 of 1966 arises out of a writ petition before the High Court for quashing notifications issued by the Government of Bombay under Ss. 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the lands belonging to the appellant-Survey Nos. 15, 14 and 384 of the village.Danilimda outside the area of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation were needed for a public purpose. 2. Two separate notifications were issued under s.4 one in respect of Survey No. 15 and another in respect of Survey Nos. 14 and 384 by the Government of Bombay. By these notifications it was declared that the lands of the appellant were needed for a public purpose, namely, "slum clearance, housing and roads." In the notification relating to Survey No. 15 there was also a declaration under s. 17 (4) dispensing with the enquiry under s. 5-A. 3. Later two separate notifications were issued under s. 6-the first notification relating to Survey No. 15 and was issued by the Government of Bombay. The Government of Bombay further directed under s. 17(1) that on the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notification relating to lands under sub-s. (1) of s. 9 of the Act, the Collector shall take possession of all the waste or arable lands specified in the Government notification. A separate notification was issued in respect of lands Survey Nos. 14 and 384 by the Commissioner, Baroda Division under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was recited therein that the Commissioner of Ahmedabad Division was satisfied after considering the report of the Collector under sub-S. (2) of s. 5-A that the lands were needed to be acquired at the public expense for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the Schedule thereto. It is clear that in respect of the lands Survey No 15 an inquiry under s. 5A (2) was dispensed with and a declaration under s. 17 (4) was made simultaneously with the notification under s. 4. In respect of lands Survey Nos. 14 and 384 no declaration under s. 17 (4) was made and an inquiry was conducted by the Collector under s. 5A (2) and after considering the report of the Collector the Commissioner. In respect of lands Survey Nos. 14 and 384 no declaration under s. 17 (4) was made and an inquiry was conducted by the Collector under s. 5A (2) and after considering the report of the Collector the Commissioner. Baroda Division issued the requisite notification under Ss. 6 and 17 (l)of the Act. 4. The appellant moved a petition in the High Court of Gujarat for a writ of mandamus for setting aside the notifications under ss. 4 & 6. The High Court was of the view that though the declaration under s. 17 (4) was ineffective, it did not vitiate the notification under s. 4, insofar as it related to Survey No. 15. But since no inquiry was made under s. 5A. (2), the High Court set aside the notification under s. 6 read with s. 17 (1) in respect of Survey No. 15 and dismissed the petition in respect of Survey Nos. 14 and 384. 5 Four contentions were urged is support of the appeal: 1, that the provisions of the Commissioners of Divisions Act 8 of 1958 were ultra vires and the Commissioner, Baroda Division had no power to issue the notification under s: 6; 2 that the acquisition was for the purpose of the Municipal Corporation, and since the requirements of s. 77 of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, had not been complied with the proceedings for acquisition were invalid; 3. that "slum clearance" is not a public purpose within the extended definition of s. 78 and it is not otherwise a public purpose; and 4. that the name of the instrumentality which was going to execute the purpose not having been prescribed, the notification was bad. 6. In our view slum clearance, housing and making of roads are public purposes, apart from the extended meaning which that expression has by virtue of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. Clearance of slums promotes public health and sanitation and conduces to public health and welfare. Acquisition of land for removal of slums is, in our judgment, a public purpose. The notification is therefore not exposed to any attack assuming that there is substance in the attack on the ground of the alleged failure to comply with the requirements of ss 77 & 78 of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 7. Acquisition of land for removal of slums is, in our judgment, a public purpose. The notification is therefore not exposed to any attack assuming that there is substance in the attack on the ground of the alleged failure to comply with the requirements of ss 77 & 78 of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 7. We have held in our judgment in the companion appeal No. 1102 of 1967, following the,decision in Arnold Rodricks & Anr. v. State of Maharasira & Ors(1966) 3 S. C. R. 885 that the Commissioners of Divisions Act, 8 of 1958 is not ultra vires. We have also held that failure to name the "instrumentality" through which, the-public purpose it to be executed does not affect the validity of the order. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. For Citation: (1969) 2 SCWR 887 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.