JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---By this petition acquisition of 2 H 2 R land of field Survey No. 46/2 admeasuring 18 acres of village Ghatanji, for the purposes of resettlement of persons affected by upper Painganga Project under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Central Act) has been challenged. 2. Three points are urged by Shri Samudra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner: (1) In view of the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (The State Act), instant acquisition can be only under that Act. (2) The land does not fall under the benefited zone of Upper Painganga Project and hence cannot be acquired. (3) In calculating the total holding of the land owner for determination of the area to be acquired as per Government Resolution No. RPA-1071/41583/R-I, dated 26th March, 1973, pot kharab land ought to be excluded. 3. Point No. 1. Admitted position is that the State Act has not been made applicable to the Upper Painganga Project. Under the circumstances, the point stands concluded against the petitioner in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in (Ganpat Balwant Pawar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 7)1, 1984 Mh.L.J. 752 by which it is held that there cannot be acquisition under the State Act unless the Act is applied to a specific project. 4. Point No. 2. Basis of this point has been held to be factually incorrect as per the official record. We see no reason to disbelieve the official version and to strike a different note in the writ jurisdiction. 5. Point No. 3. This point is of some importance. It is contended that since for the purposes of calculating total holdings of a landholder under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (The Ceiling Act), pot kharab land has to be excluded, as held in many decisions including the case of (Keshaorao Raoji v. State of Maharashtra)2, 1969 Mh.L.J. 165 there is no reason for not applying the same principle to determination of total holdings for the purposes of the said Government Resolutions. We find it difficult to accept this contention though it appears to be impressive in the first blush. We find it difficult to accept this contention though it appears to be impressive in the first blush. Section 2(16) of the Ceiling Act defines 'land as under :- "2(16) "land" means land which is used, or capable of being used for purposes of agriculture, and includes- (a) the sites of farm buildings on, or appurtanant to such land; (b) land on which grass grows naturally; (c) trees and standing crops on such land; (d) canals, channels, wells pipes or reservoirs or other works constructed or maintained on such land for the supply or storage of water for the purpose of agriculture; (e) drainage works, embankments, bandharas or any other works appurtenant to such land, or constructed or maintained thereon the purposes of agriculture; and all structures an permanent fixtures on such land." It is pertinent to notice that land essentially means land which is, in fact, used or capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture. The definition is inclusive of certain categories of land specified in Items (a) to (e) in which the pot kharab land does not find place. Keeping in view the aforesaid special definition, the object of the legislation and the fact that pot kharab land is not capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture, this Court held that such land has to be excluded in calculating the total area. 6. Somewhat similar, if not exact, definition of the term 'land' is given under section 2(17) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (the Tenancy Act) which means- (a) land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and includes the sites of farm building appurtenant to such land; and (b) for the purposes of sections 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 34, 36 37, 55, 89, 91, 121 122- (i) the sites of dwelling houses occupied by agriculturists, agricultural labourers or artisans and land appurtenant to such dwelling houses; (ii) the sites of structures used by agriculturists for allied pursuits." 7. Section 3 of the Central Act gives the definition of the term 'land' as under: "In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context--- (a) the expression 'land' includes benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth." The term 'land' has not been specifically defined under the State Act, but the term 'holding' is by section 2(10). Section 2(15) of the State Act mentions that words and expressions used in this Act but not defined, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (the code). The term 'holding' is defined as under : "2(10) "holding" means the total land held by a person as an occupant or tenant, or as both." The Code defines the term "land" as under: "2(16) "land" includes benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, and also shares in or charges on, the revenue or rent of villages, or other defined portions of territory." Section 16(4) of the State Act is also of some relevance. It reads thus: "16(4). For the purpose of resettling displaced persons on land, the State Government may, subject to any rules made in this behalf, acquire land from holding in the benefited zone or from any village or area specified under section 10 as far as practicable according to the provisions of Part II of Schedule A hereto." It will thus be seen that different enactments give different definition of the term 'land' and definition under the Ceiling Act and Tenancy Act on one and Central and State Act for acquisition of lands on the other are materially different. Reason can be traced in the object of the Act. 8. It is pertinent to notice that power of the Government to determine the extent of land required for acquisition for public purposes is nearly absolute. Limited areas of challenge to that power are (i) mala fides (ii) non-application of mind. Government Resolution will have to be read keeping in view these basic legal positions. When necessity arose to acquire land for the project affected persons various circulars were issued from time to time in the matter of sources from which acquisition should be made. Limited areas of challenge to that power are (i) mala fides (ii) non-application of mind. Government Resolution will have to be read keeping in view these basic legal positions. When necessity arose to acquire land for the project affected persons various circulars were issued from time to time in the matter of sources from which acquisition should be made. Government Waste lands, Government Forests lands, Surplus land available under the Land Ceiling Act, Gaipur land were found insufficient to meet the growing demand and hence source of private lands from the benefited zone of the irrigation project had to be topped. Several policy decisions were taken in the matter of selection of lands from that source and the question of rationalisation of the slab system for acquisition of such lands was taken up and a revised general slab was finalised as under: Size of the holdings Area to be acquired (i)Upto 10 acres Nil (ii)Above 10 acres and The area in excess of 10 acres, upto 15 acres. but not more than 2 acres. (iii)Above 15 acres and The area in exces of 13 acres but upto 30 acres. not more than 5 acres. (iv)Above 30 acres. All the ares in excess of 25 acres. 9. What is material in the slab is the "size of the holdings" which term has to be construed in the light of the concept under the laws relating to acquisition. No exception has been carved out in respect of any particular variety of land. To exclude the pot kharab land in calculating the total holding wound amount to re-writing the Government Resolution and to import the concept of "land" under the other enactments whose objects and scheme is entirely different. For doing this, we see no justification whatsoever. It is pertinent to notice that the land is not always acquired for the purposes of agriculture in such cases. Sometimes they are acquired also for establishing new Abadis. 10. Under the circumstances, there is no substance in this petition. It is rejected. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Needless to mention that interim orders stand automatically vacated. Rule discharged. -----