P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) LEAVE to amend as prayed for to add three more petitioners is granted. ( 2 ) THIS Special Civil Application in filed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the impugned notice at Annexure A and also for restraining respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from occupying the said land in question. The State of Gujarat invoking Sec. 35 of the Land Acquisition Act wanted to acquire the strip of land the details of which are given hereunder temporarily for the purpose of having a road to approach the ONGC well shown in the plan now submitted by the respondents: Name of S. No. / Hec. Are/ Name of Owner village Block No. Sq. Mtrs. Dant-Karodi 424 0-07-50 Ramabhai Manorbhai Raichand Karshanbhai Mitha-Dharva 379 0-12-60 Mafatlal Nathushanker Jayantilal Nathushanker 380 0-06-40 Ladhubhai Mulchandas resident of Lanwa 394 0-02-90 Vishvanath Joitaram 395 0-13-80 Vishvanath Jetharam ( 3 ) THE main contentions of Mr. Patel learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners are that there is no public purpose for acquiring these Survey Nos. inasmuch as the respondents have already taken possession of different Survey Nos. only last year for the purpose of having a road from the main read and inasmuch as there is already a cart-track in existence through which the ingress and egress can be bad for the respondent No. 2 ONGC. It is further contended that the acquisition is not bona fide and the same has been done with mala fide intention of helping the contractors who want to use this road for the transport facilities. Allowing the acquisition for the purpose of giving benefit to contractors to use this road according to the learned Counsel Mr. Patel cannot be considered as a public purpose also. The next contention put forward by Mr. Patel is that these lands are fertile lands and it could not have been acquired since there is already an alternative road for the use of the respondent No. 2. ( 4 ) TO appreciate the contentions of the respective parties we can just refer to a few facts in this case. ONGC has a drill site at Lanwa 19 which has a geological name LWAJ. It is situated at Dant-Karodi and Mitha-Dharva villages. ( 4 ) TO appreciate the contentions of the respective parties we can just refer to a few facts in this case. ONGC has a drill site at Lanwa 19 which has a geological name LWAJ. It is situated at Dant-Karodi and Mitha-Dharva villages. At the time of finding this drill site there was one village approach road from village Lanwa to this drill site Lanwa-19. In order to effectively carry out the drilling a temporary approach road was constructed by acquiring land by private negotiations and mutual understanding with the parties for taking drilling rig to the drill site LWAJ. Inasmuch as this temporary road site which connects the main road is lengthy and zig-zag the respondents surrendered the said land to the owners by paying compensation and the land was restored to the parties for agricultural purpose. The village road which in already in assistance according to the respondents is a narrow one with the large number of underground pipelines and if any heavy truck is taken over the same it is bound to damage badly the pipelines. If this village road is used for taking such heavy trucks it may also damage the road side fencing road side trees and standing crops of various land owners of that area. Since the ONGC requires one shortest and direct approach road so that heavy rig equipments and other heavy equipments can pass from Mehsana-Chanasma road to Lanwa-19 drill site a strip of land from the present Survey Nos. is sought to be acquired through the provisions contained in Sec. 35 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 5 ) IN short the abovesaid statement of facts is the main contention advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in this case. In respect of notice of which Mr. Patel took objection on the ground that the notice mentions only for digging bores and for research work that these lands are acquired Mr. M. I. Hawa and Mr. R. H. Mehta learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is in connection with this work that these strips in the above Survey Nos. are sought to be acquired and also for the purpose of laying the road. M. I. Hawa and Mr. R. H. Mehta learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is in connection with this work that these strips in the above Survey Nos. are sought to be acquired and also for the purpose of laying the road. It is clear from the reply given by the respondents and also from the contentions advanced by the petitioners that the petitioners understood that the respondents wanted to acquire these disputed area only for the purpose of putting up the road. Further it is clear from the notices issued by the respondents and from the fact that only a strip of land in the Survey Nos. referred to above is sought to be acquired that the purpose of acquiring these lands is for laying the road to connect the Lanwa 19 drill site with the main road. Hence the argument that the notice specifies a different purpose than the one for which the land is sought to be acquired cannot have any substance. ( 6 ) BEFORE considering the other contentions raised by the learned counsel as regards the mala fide nature of acquisition and want of public purpose we can usefully refer to the Section under which the present acquisition is made. Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:"35. Temporary occupation of waste or arable land Procedure when difference as to compensation exists : (1)Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the temporary occupation and use of any waste or arable land are needed for any public purposes or for a company the appropriate Government may direct the Collector to procure the occupation and use of the same for such term as it shall think fit not exceeding three years from the commencement of such occupation (2) The Collector shall thereupon give notice in writing to the persons interested in such land of the purpose for which the same is needed and shall for the occupation and use thereof for such term as aforesaid and for the materials if any) to be taken therefrom. pay to them such compensation either in a gross sum of money or by monthly or other periodical payments as shall be agreed upon In writing between him and such persons respectively (3) In case the Collector and the persons Interested differ as to the sufficiency of the compensation or apportionment thereof the Collector shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court. "section 36 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:"36. Power to enter and take possession and compensation on restoration : (1) On payment of such compensation or on execution of such agreement or on making a reference under Sec. 35 the Collector may enter upon and take possession of the land and use or permit the use thereof in accordance with the terms of the said notice. (2) On the expiration of the term the Collector shall make or tender to the persons interested compensation for the damage (if any) done to the land and not provided for by the agreement and shall restore the land to the persons interested thereon. Provided that if the land has become permanently unfit to be used for the purpose for which it was used immediately before the commencement of such term and if the persons interested shall so require the appropriate Government shall proceed under this Act to acquire the land as if it was needed permanently for a public purpose or for a Company. In the Gujarat Amendment called the Land Acquisition (Gujarat Unification and Amendment) Act 1963 (XX of 1965) under Sec. 17 of the said Act the words waste or arable occurring in Sec. 35 of the main Act was deleted. The learned Counsel Mr. Patel even though wanted to submit that the land acquired is not a waste or arable land did not press this point since there is an amendment by the Gujarat Act as referred above. " ( 7 ) THE next contention of Mr. Patel is that the temporary occupation of the land is subject to the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act. Mr. Patel reading Secs. 39 and 40 of the Act states that inasmuch as there is no enquiry under Sec. 5a the acquisition sought to be made under Sec. 35 in this case cannot be sustained. This point was correctly met by Mr. Hawa by pointing out the definition of Secs. Mr. Patel reading Secs. 39 and 40 of the Act states that inasmuch as there is no enquiry under Sec. 5a the acquisition sought to be made under Sec. 35 in this case cannot be sustained. This point was correctly met by Mr. Hawa by pointing out the definition of Secs. 2 (c) and 2 (cc) Reading of Sec. 35 and also this Chapter VII it is clear that the enquiry contemplated will apply only when acquisitions are made under Sec. 35 for the Company. Section 2 (c) defines the expression Company as follows:" (C) The expression Company means : (i)a Company as defined in Sec. 3 of the Companies Act 1956 other than a Government Company referred to in clause (cc); (ii) a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State other than a Society referred to in clause (cc ). (iii) A Co-operative Society within the meaning of any law relating to Co-operative Societies for the time being in force in any State other than a Co-operative society referred to in clause (cc ). "section 2 (cc) explains the expression Corporation owned or controlled by the State and it reads as follows:" (cc ). The expression Corporation owned or controlled by the State means any body corporate established by or under a Central Provincial or State Act and includes a Government Company as defined in Sec. 617 of the Companies Act 1956 a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State being a society established or administered by Government and Co-Operative Society within the meaning of any law relating to Co-operative Societies for the time being in force in any State being a Co-operative Society in which not less than fifty-one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or by any State Government or Governments or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State Government. "o. N. G. C. cannot come under the definition of expression of Company contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Hence we do not think that the argument of Mr. Patel that it is a Company and as such the provisions of Sec. 5a ought to have been followed can be sustained. ( 8 ) MR. "o. N. G. C. cannot come under the definition of expression of Company contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Hence we do not think that the argument of Mr. Patel that it is a Company and as such the provisions of Sec. 5a ought to have been followed can be sustained. ( 8 ) MR. Patel cited the decision in the case of Patel Shankerbhai Mahijibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1981 Gujarat 67: 1980 (2) GLR 239 . In this case a Bench of our High Court dealing with Land Acquisition Act Sec. 4 held that:"specification of a public purpose which would enable the interested persons to lodge the objections effectively under Sec. 5a is the core of Sec. 4. If that requirement of Sec. 4 is not satisfied notification issued under Sec. 4 must be held. to be void. A declaration under Sec. 6 is not a cure because it follows the enquiry under Sec. 5a. A notification which does not specify the public purpose being void or non est is not so much required to be set aside. " ( 9 ) IN the case of Musmiya Imam Haidarbux Razvi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. A:r 1971 Gujarat 158: 1971 GLR 1 the Bench of this Court no doubt held that declaration can be challenged on the ground that it was in colourable exercise of power of the State Government. It was also held in that decision that the Court can enquire into the question of public purpose. ( 10 ) IN the case of State of Punjab and Anr. v. Gurdial Singh and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 319 the Supreme Court has held that the Court cannot interfere unless choice is made with oblique ends or is otherwise void. In this connection Mr. Patel also cited the decision in the case of Collector Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswar AIR 1985 SC 1622 . ( 11 ) PRESSING into service all these decisions Mr. Patel stated that the intention to acquire this strip of land belonging to the petitioners herein is mala fide and that there is absolutely no public purpose served by acquiring this land. As far as the public purpose is concerned Mr. Patel pressed his point by stating that this road is developed for the purpose of helping the contractors to have ingress and egress for their transport purposes. As far as the public purpose is concerned Mr. Patel pressed his point by stating that this road is developed for the purpose of helping the contractors to have ingress and egress for their transport purposes. Hence according to Mr. Patel there is no public purpose in this acquisition. ( 12 ) AS regards the question of mala fides Mr. Patel has pointed out the averments in paragraph 6 of the petition which reads as follows:"6 That the purpose of the said occupation is not really within the scope of the land Acquisition Act but smacks of mala fide intention to acquire the Land in question at the public exchequer to accommodate some vested interest elements who are engaged as contractors for O N. G. C. as transport contractors and in collusion with the said outside agency the respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned notice which is nothing but misuse of discretionary power vested in the respondent No. 2 which is mala fide caprice discriminatory in nature and for oblique purpose. It is the say of Patel that this averments of mala fides made by him has not been controverted by the respondents. We are not able to appreciate this argument advanced by Mr. Patel. Mr. K. S. Shah Assistant Director (Survey) Land Acquisition Department of the O. N. G. C. Mehsana Project has definitely stated the necessity for acquiring this strip of land for the purpose of constructing the road. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit-in-reply. While narrating the facts we have narrated in our own words what the respondents have stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by one Mr. K. S. Shah. Apart from the averments made in paragraph 3 there is a clear averment in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit-in-reply wherein it is stated as follows:"4 I say that this approach road is required to be occupied temporarily on urgent basis. The action was taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and notices were issues to all concerned five land owners residing in Lanwa village and owning land in villages Mitha Dharva and Dant Karodi. The action was taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and notices were issues to all concerned five land owners residing in Lanwa village and owning land in villages Mitha Dharva and Dant Karodi. This proposed road is preferred being the shortest and direct road from Mehsana-Chanasma road to the site LWAJ having regard to the fact that the village read is narrow and lengthy and could damage the underground cement pipelines and also could cause damage to the heavy equipment of the Commission. I say that no other approach read is preferable and better then the proposed one which is required for temporary occupation. "thus it is clear from these averments and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the acquisition is not for oblique purposes to help the contractors nor out of mala fides but for a genuine purpose of having a road which will be shortest one from the main road to the drill site in question. Thus we are able to see that there is no prima facie case for spelling out mala fides or want of public purpose as suggested by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein. ( 13 ) THE copy of the plan even though not authenticated given alongwith the affidavit-in-reply clearly points out that only a strip of land on the border line of the abovesaid survey numbers are sought to be temporarily acquired under Sec. 35 of the Land Acquisition Act in order to reach LWAJ i. e. the oil well Project. This strip of land when compared to the previous acquisition by consent which now has been cancelled by paying compensation is definitely in the straight line from the main road and then acquisition of this strip is very negligible when compared to the area of those survey numbers owned by the petitioners herein. Thus we do not find any oblique motive or mala fide intentions as such prima facie made out to quash the proceedings. Sections 35 and 36 of the Land Acquisition Act are intended only for a temporary purpose and do not think that such power exercised by the authorities concerned in this case in any way spells out oblique motive or mala fide intention. Sections 35 and 36 of the Land Acquisition Act are intended only for a temporary purpose and do not think that such power exercised by the authorities concerned in this case in any way spells out oblique motive or mala fide intention. ( 14 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel that fertile lands are being acquired for the purpose of the road causing great hardship to the petitioners also cannot be appreciated inasmuch as only a strip of land and that too at the edge of the abovesaid survey numbers are being acquired temporarily for putting up the road. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING these facts we have absolutely no hesitation in homing to the conclusion that the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot have any application to the facts of the present case. It is not necessary for us to refer to the decision in the case of Daga Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1978 Calcutta page 1 which deals with a case wherein in Sec. 5a enquiry the Collector has not considered the alternative site available while making his report. Such a position has not arisen in this case nor this case can be considered as the one which is akin to the case decided by the Calcutta High Court in the above clause. ( 16 ) IN view of the abovesaid discussion made by U5 we do not find any merits in this Special Civil Application. Accordingly this petition is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. ( 17 ) AT this stage Mr. Patel learned Counsel for the petitioners states that he wants to take up the matter to the higher forum on the interpretation of Sec. 35 of the Land Acquisition Act and prays for the Constitution of the stay which we have granted earlier at the time we issued the notice. Inasmuch as the acquisition is for temporary purpose and also for a public necessity and inasmuch as we have categorically held that there is neither oblique motive nor mala fide intention in doing so we do not think that the stay granted can be extended any further in this case. Considering the necessity of public purpose involved in this case the request for extension of interim relief granted already is refused. Rule discharged. .