JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by as many as 24 persons seeking Certiorari for quashing of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and for Mandamus directing the respondents not to acquire the land belonging to the petitioners. 2. The details of the plots are mentioned in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. These plots are situate in Tehri Garhwal. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act mentioned the purposes of Acquisition as "For a public purpose, namely, for construction of New Tehri Township". Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act had not been dispensed with. Objections were filed under that section to the acquisition. The State Government, after obtaining the report, found that the objections to the acquisition were unfounded and devoid of merits. On that satisfaction, the notification under Section 6 was issued on 6-3-1984. The present writ petition was filed in this Court on 7-1-1985. 3. Instead of admitting the writ petition, a Bench of this Court asked the State Government to file a counter-affidavit, in pursuance of which a counter-affidavit has been filed, to which rejoinder has also been filed. 4. Before us, the argument of the learned counsel for to the petitioners was that as the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A had not been disposed of, the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was invested, and as the notification under Section 6 was invalid, the entire proceedings were liable to be quashed. In support of the averment that an objection under Section 5-A was filed, the petitioners have annexed along with the writ petition a copy of the objections dated 22-11-1982 as Annexure 2'. In the counter-affidavit, the State has denied the filing of the objections, as has been pleaded by the petitioners in the writ petition. It has been averred that no such objection, filed as Annexure 2', was ever preferred before the Collector. 5. To make out his point, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced before us the copy of the objection which bears the endorsement of receipt of the same. This was disputed by the State Counsel. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the papers, we are of opinion that filing of the objections by the petitioners is extremely doubtful. This was disputed by the State Counsel. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the papers, we are of opinion that filing of the objections by the petitioners is extremely doubtful. In case the objections would have been filed, one fails to understand why the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer, who was authorised to decide the same, did not deal with the same, when similar objections of 85 other persons were disposed of on merits while recording the satisfaction that the land was needed for a public purpose. It is mentioned in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit that all of those persons whose lands would be acquired would not only be given compensation and ex gratia payment, but also would be allotted sites for the purposes of construction of the house. The relevant portion of this paragraph is extracted below. "The petitioner and the residents of village Baurari are not only being given compensation at market value, solatium and interest from ' the date of notification under Section 4 (1) but they are being provided with certain special concession which have been made application for Tehri Dam Displaced persons only. These concessions included a minimum of Rs. 35,000/- for land and a minimum of Rs. 12,000/- for house. Apart from minimum amount, provision has also been made for ex-gratia payment above the compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for irrigated land, Rs. 6,000/- per acre for 'Abbal' category of land and Rs. 4,000/- per acre for 'Doyam' category of land. They are also being provided displacement allowance to meet cost of transport of their household effects. The persons whose principal livelihood is agriculture are also being rehabilitated by providing them developed pieces of two acres of land in various sites in the district of Dehradun and Saharanpur. Those who want to settle near Dehradun city are being provided with acre of land in Banjarawal which almost adjoins Dehradun City. Thus the land is being acquired for a definite public purpose and full facilities have been given for payment of compensation including concession like minimum compensation, ex-gratia etc. but also two acres of developed land at a concessional rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for irrigated land and Rs. 8,000/- per acre for unirrigated land. Thus the land is being acquired for a definite public purpose and full facilities have been given for payment of compensation including concession like minimum compensation, ex-gratia etc. but also two acres of developed land at a concessional rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for irrigated land and Rs. 8,000/- per acre for unirrigated land. The petitioner and other similarly affected person will also be given a preferential choice of residential plot in new Tehri Town provided they do not opt for a residential plot near the agricultural site which is being offered to them. Those persons who want to carry out small business will be helped by providing constructed shop in new Tehri Town. Preference in appointments in the Irrigation Department upto, certain level is also being given to the displaced person in Tehri Dam Project. It may not be out of place to add that attracted by this benevolent offer of the Govt, about 37 families of the petitioners village Baurari have already sold their land to Govt, by private negotiations and have settled down in Bhaniawala colony of district Dehradun where they have been provided developed agricultural land with community facilities, light, road, tubewells, schools, panchayat ghar, dispensary etc." 7. To us, it appears that this theory of non-disposal of the objections filed by the petitioners is an afterthought and has been taken for the purposes of stalling acquisition. Being not satisfied that the objections filed by the petitioners remained undisposed of, we reject the ground taken by the petitioners. 8. We are also not satisfied that the purpose for which the land was being acquired was not a public purpose. The definition of the expression "public purpose" given in Section 3 (f) of the Land Acquisition Act is very wide in nature. This expression" public purpose" has received interpretations of various High Courts of this Country and the Supreme Court in various cases. The trend of the authorities is to reject the restricted meaning which is sought to be given to it. The purpose of construction of New Tehri Township, it is judged in the background of the present facts, would lead necessarily to the conclusion that it was a public purpose. 9. For the reasons given above, we dismiss the writ petition summarily and vacate the stay order.