RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has presented this petition questioning the legality of the acquisition of 8 acres of land belonging to him in Survey No. 157 of Ichangi village, Hattimattur Hobli, Savanur Taluk, dharwad District, under the previsions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act' for short) ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are : - A preliminary notification dated 3-2-1984 was issued under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act, proposing to acquire the (and belonging to the petitioner. The fast date for the receipt of the objections was 30-4-1984. The petitioner filed his objections. After enquiry report was received by the Government, it approved the acquisition. Final notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 8th august 1985. Questioning the legality of the said final notification, the petitioner has presented this petition. ( 3 ) SRI. K. N. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged the following three contentions : (I) The purpose for which the land was being acquired was not a public purpose. . (ii) Final notification was not published in the news papers as required under Section 6 of the Act and there fore the final notification was invalid end (iii) Section 6 of the Act, requires specification of the exact boundary of the land acquired and in the present case the boundary has not been correctly specified and therefore the acquisition is invalid. ( 4 ) EJEBORATING the first contention, the learned Counsel submitted as follows: the acquisition was at the instance of a few agriculturists of the village. They had collected cost of acquisition of Rs. 26,000-00. the acquisition was not at public expense With reference to this proposal the Tahsildar Savanur had submitted his report on. 17-9-1983 (Annexure b ). In the said report he has stated the following facts : (1) Cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 26,000/- has been collected by the villagers, (2) They wanted the land for the purpose of using it as thrasing ground for the reason their lands were situated at a distance Stocking of foodgrains at one place was not advissible for the reason that in the event of any fire accident or fire mischief the entire production of food of the village for the whole year would be destroyed. After harvest the agriculturists could use their own lands as thrashing ground, if it was inconvenient to have the thrashing ground in their respective fields, the lands available in the Gramathana could be used, inspite of this report of the Tahsildar, the land was sought to be acquired and the cost of acquisition was sought to be made from out of the funds collected from the agriculturists. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in girdharilal Amrutlal Shodan and others v. The State of Gujarat and others ( AIR 1966 SC 1408 ), in support of his submission that unless the cost of acquisition was met from public funds the acquisition would be invalid. He also submitted that the purpose for which the land was being acquired was admittedly a private purpose and not a public purpose. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the State has produced the records. The records disclose that after the report was submitted by the tahsildar, Savanur, the assistant Commissioner, Savanur, in his letter dated 11-11-1983 informed the tahsildaf that it wis not possible to give the land in the Gramathana to the agriculturists. In the light of the said letter of the Assistant Commissioner, the tahsildar in his letter dated 23-11-1983 found at page 1 of the record stated that in terms of the resolution of the Panchayath 8 acres of land in Survey No. 157 of ichangi village in Dharwad District, belonging to the petitioner could be acquired. The records also disclose that there has been a resolution of the Panchayath, requesting the Government to acquire the land for the purpose of making land available for thrashing and the Panchayath had expressed its willingness and deposited the entire cost of acquisition from the funds of the Panchayath. Thus, the records clearly disclose that the acquisition was at the instance of the Village panchayath, and the cost of acquisition was met out of the panchayath funds which is public funds. Therefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the acquisition was bad on the ground that the cost of acquisition was being met by the villagers is not correct. Therefore the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the acquisition was bad on the ground that the cost of acquisition was being met by the villagers is not correct. ( 7 ) AS far as the second contention of the petitioner that the acquisition is not for a public purpose is concerned, it should be pointed out that sub section (3) of Section 6,of the Act, provides that once a declaration is made by the Government that the land is needed for a public purpose, such declaration is conclusive. The scope of this section has been considered by the Supreme Court in somawanti v. State of punjab (AIR 1963 supreme Court 151 ). In the said judgment, the Supreme court has held that in view of Section 6 (3), the declaration that the land is needed for public purpose was conclusive both regarding the need and also regarding the public purpose. The supreme Court has also further held that if in a given case it is established that the declaration made was fraud On powers or colourable exercise of power it was open for the courts to interfere with the declaration, but not otherwise inview of the conclusiveness given to it under section 6 (3) of the Act. In the present case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though he had not specifically stated that the declaration made in this case was a colourable exercie of power or fraud on powers, he had placed material to show that this was a clear case of colourable exercise of power. But as stated earlier the only material placed is the report of the tahsildar dated 17-9-1983 But as seen from the records subsequently on 11-11-1983 the Tahsildar himself had reported that the land was necessary for the use of the villagers as there was no thrashing ground and the panchayath had come forward to request for the acquisition of the land and had also agreed to meet the cost of acquisition. On consideration of the material placed before me I am of the opinion that the material is not such as would justify the conclusion that the declaration in question was fraud on powers or colourable exercise of powers. On consideration of the material placed before me I am of the opinion that the material is not such as would justify the conclusion that the declaration in question was fraud on powers or colourable exercise of powers. ( 8 ) THE second contention of the petitioner is based upon the language of section 6 of the Act as amended by the land Acquisition Amendment Act 1984. Section 6 of the amendment Act reads thus : section 6 (1)- Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisied after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A sub-section (1) that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, such Government shall direct the deputy Commissioner to proceed under sub-section (1-A) (1-A) The Deputy Commissioner shall thereupon within two months from the date on which he received such direction :- (a) cause the land (unless it has been already marked out under Section 4 to be marked out ; (b) also caused to be measured, and if no plan has been made therefore, a plan to be made of the same and (c) report to the appropriate government the result of his operations under this sub-section the appropriate government shall then made a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered b. y the same notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4. XX XX XX (2) Every declaration shall be published in the official gazette and in two daily news papers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, the precise boundary and survey number of the land, its approximate area and the place where the plan of the land may be inspected. (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company as the case may be and after making such declaration the appropriate government may acquire the land in the manner hereinafter appearing. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the amended provision, the final notification has to be published not only in the official gazette but also in two daily news papers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language. In view of the language of the provision the learned counsel contended that publication in two daily news papers was mandatory and if it was not published, the final notification would be illegal. ( 10 ) FT is true in the provision, the word 'shall' is used regarding publication in news papers, but having regard to the context in which the said word is used, it appears to me that it cannot be interpreted as mandatory. The reason for this conclusion may be summarised thus : section 4 of the Act provides for the issue of preliminary notification. It requires publication of the notification in the official Gazette and also in the locality. That requirement has been held to be mandatory (See Gangadharaiah v. State of Mysore (1961 Mys. L. J. 883 ). The said section also provides that notice on the owner of the land proposed to be acquired may also be served. This provision has been held to be not mandatory by a Division Bench of this Court, on consideration of the principles which govern the construction of statutes, for deciding as to whether a provision is mandatory or directory (See State of karnataka v. Kempaiah (1980 (1) Kar. LJ. 521) section 4 (1) has also been amended. The section as amended requires the publication of preliminary notification in two news papers. The object is that every person who has got a right to object to the acquisition should be made known of the proposal so that valuable right given under Section 5-A of the Act, is not deprived. Therefore, that requirement might be regarded as mandatory for every individual having interest in the property, is given right to file his objections within 30 days. When objections are filed. Section 5-A of the Act requires the inquiring authority to give an opportunity of hearing the objectors. Therefore, that requirement might be regarded as mandatory for every individual having interest in the property, is given right to file his objections within 30 days. When objections are filed. Section 5-A of the Act requires the inquiring authority to give an opportunity of hearing the objectors. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act, requires the inquiring authority to inform the objector about its sending the report to the government. This provision is intended to give an opportunity to the individual, if he so desires, to pursuade the government not to acquire the land. Once these mandatory steps in acquiring the land are over the Final notification has to be published. After this, the next stage is only proceedings for award of compensation. In that regard, section 12 of the act, expressly provides for giving individual notice to all the persons who have interest in the land acquired. The purpose of publication of the final notification in the two daily news papers is only to inform the owners about the issue of final notification, as official Gazettes are not as widely circulated as news papers and nothing more. Non publication in news papers does not in any way affect the rights of the owners or other persons having an interest in the land. Therefore, it is appropriate to construe the prescription as directory. It is true that even a directory provision is meant to be followed and the authorities should not ignore it. But the difference between a directory provision and mandatory provision is, in the case of the former, its noncompliance does not render the action invalid, whereas in the case of the latter it does. In conclusion, I hold that requirement of publication of final notification in two news papers is directory and therefore non-publication of final notification in the news papers constitutes no ground to set aside the final notification published in the official gazette. ( 11 ) IN respect of the third and the last contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that specification of the boundary was mandatory in view of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act. There can be no doubt that specification of the boundary is necessary far The reason without specification of the boundary the particular piece of land acquired cannot be identified. There can be no doubt that specification of the boundary is necessary far The reason without specification of the boundary the particular piece of land acquired cannot be identified. But in the present case after going through the records, I find that the boundaries in respect of the land acquired on the East, west and the north have been specifically mentioned and only in mentioning the southern boundary a mistake has been committed in that instead of saying that southern boundary is the unacquired portion of the said survey number, it is shown as survey No, 152 But even with this mistake 8 acres of land acquired out of 11 acres 23 guntas in Survey No. 157 can clearly be identified. Apart from this, it should also be pointed that subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Act itself requires that place where the plan of the land acquired could be inspected should be specified in the final notification. In the impugned notification this aspect has been expressly set out and the plan which is annexed to the notification is found in the record. In the said plan 8 acres of land out of 11 acres 23 guntas has been specifically demarcated and as stated earlier the only mistake in the final notification is about the wrong specification of the southern boundary. The specification of the other boundaries and the plan annexed to the notification together with the statement in the final notification as to where the plan is available for inspection constitutes substantial compliance with the provision, the mistake is not a material one as would result in the non-specification of the actual area acquired. Hence, the third contention is also liable to be rejected. In the result, I make the following : the Writ Petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .