Judgment :- 1. P-1 notice pursuant to the notification in the Gazette dated 20 21973 under S.3 (1) and Ext. P-2 declaration dated 211975 under S.6 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, are under challenge in this writ petition According to Sri K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, the counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of 90 cents of land comprised in T. S. No. 1338 on which the petitioner had desired to construct a residential building for her are liable to be quashed as they are tainted with malafides and are in colourable exercise of the power vested in the respondents. 2. The main argument advanced by Sri Radhakrishna Menon is that the contention of the respondents that the acquisition for Bilathikulam Housing Scheme under S.33 of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, should be deemed to be for public purpose cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the declared object as could be gathered from Ext P-1 in the present case is "for development of land for purpose of sale as house sites". He submitted that the scheme contemplated under S.33 of the Madras Town Planning Act, on which reliance is placed by the respondents, could only be to acquire land for the purpose of allotment of sites among members who constituted an association like a co-operative society for whose benefit the acquisition is made, not for sale He would contend that sale implies profit and the power vested in the respondents could not be so abused as to enable the Housing Board or similar agencies to make profit out of acquisition. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. M. I. Haider Bux (AIR. 1977 SC. 594) where in Para.3 Jaswant Singh J., speaking for the Bench has stated as follows: "In these cases, it has been made clear that ordinarily the Government is the best authority to determine whether the purpose in question is a public purpose or not; it cannot be contended that a housing scheme For a limited number of persons cannot be considered as a public purpose; and the need of a section of the public may be a public purpose." This decision, in my view, not only does not advance the case of the petitioner, but also strengthens the hands of the respondents. 3. 3. Sri T.C.N. Menon, the Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the respondents, submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition He pointed out that the notification under S.3(1) of the Act was made as early as on 20-2-1973; proper enquiry was made and it was only after careful consideration of the objections that the draft declaration was approved by the Board of Revenue by Ext P-2 proceedings dated 2-1-1975 The writ petition is seen to have been filed nearly after six years from the date of the Gazette notification and four years after Ext. P-2 proceedings accepting the draft declaration. It is submitted by him that the writ petition is highly belated and the grounds urged are only the repetitions of those put forward before the acquisition authorities and the Revenue Board. 4. Sri. T.C N. Menon submitted that the assertion of Sri Radhakrishna Menon that it is with a profit motive that the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated is rather uncharitable to the Government inasmuch as it is common knowledge that the mam object of institutions like the Housing Board is to provide houses or house sites on a fair and reasonable price to those who are not owning them. He also submitted that the expression "sale" used in Ext. P-1, instead of 'allotment', in effect would make no difference inasmuch as even in the case of allotment the legal position is that the transfer of the site is for consideration The sale contemplated in Ext. P-1, broadly speaking, is for a price which would be more or less equal to the value of the land, cost of development and other incidental charges. Profit making is far from the mind of the Government in such welfare and development activities. 5. P-1, broadly speaking, is for a price which would be more or less equal to the value of the land, cost of development and other incidental charges. Profit making is far from the mind of the Government in such welfare and development activities. 5. The dimension of the housing problem in a State like Kerala which is estimated to have thirteen lakhs families having no houses at all, or are having only mere apologies for houses, has to be borne in mind in considering the question as to whether acquisition of land for development and sale as house sites amounts to public purpose or not The endeavour of the Government through its recognised agencies, however meagre and humble it might be, is a step in the right direction to relieve this misery, and is in the true spirit of the socio-economic philosophy underlying the directive principles enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution. Viewed in this light I have no hesitation in holding that the acquisition of land for development and sale constitutes public purpose, and it cannot be characterised as a colourable exercise of the power vested in the respondents. Moreover, the settled position is that it is for the Government to decide whether the acquisition sought or contemplated is for public purpose or not. 6. Sri Radhakrishna Menon then submitted that Ext. P2 would go to show that the respondents had shown hostile discrimination towards the petitioner inasmuch as after the local inspection by the Member of the Board of Revenue it was resolved to drop acquisition proceedings in respect of T.S. 1334/1 whereas similar request made by the petitioner with respect to her land was not conceded. I find no merit in this contention; It was resolved to exclude the land in T. S. I334/I after being satisfied that the lie of that land was such that it was riot required for the purpose in view and that the object of the scheme would not in any way be defeated. I find no merit in this contention; It was resolved to exclude the land in T. S. I334/I after being satisfied that the lie of that land was such that it was riot required for the purpose in view and that the object of the scheme would not in any way be defeated. Ext, P3 shows that before the draft declaration was accepted the Board of Revenue had taken sufficient care to make a local inspection and to examine the pros and cons, and it was after being convinced "that the land now acquired is absolutely essential for a bona fide public purpose and that the objections are not valid any more' that the draft declaration was approved (Vide Para.26 of Ext P2) For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. Dismissed.