Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. These two writ applications raise identical questions and hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. There are four petitioners in C, W. J. C. No. 276 of 1987 (R) including Sri Gyan Roy who is petitioners No. 1. They have prayed for a writ quashing the notice dated 5-1-1987 (Annexure-2) issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi whereby the aforesaid petitioner was required to appear for hearing of his objections on 74-1987 and was also required to produce the documents upon which he placed reliance in support of his objections. The petitioners have also sought quashing of the order of the Additional Collector, Ranchi (Annexure-3) whereby he rejected the objections raised by the petitioners to the acquisition of the lands in question under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The petitioners have further sought quashing of the entire proceeding in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 (Mity) 86-87 and have prayed that the respondents may be restrained from issuing any further notification. 3. This writ application had been filed on 6-3-1987 and was admitted for hearing on 11-3-1987. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 on 24-3-1988 in which it was stated that a notification in Form-J had been published in the Ranchi District Gazette under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 27-2-1987. The aforesaid notification was annexed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. The petitioners thereafter prayed for amendment of the writ application and sought quashing of the aforesaid notification (Annexure-C) issued under Sec. 4 of the Act. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they had acquired the ownership of the lands in question under Registered Sale-deeds dated 2-7-1985. Petitioner No. 1 claims to have purchased 13 kathas of land in plot No. 76 of village Morhabadi. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 claims to have purchased 13 kathas of land in plot No. 75 while petitioner No. 3 claims to have purchased 13 kathas of land in plot No. 75. Petitioner No. 4 also purchased 13 Kathas of land in plot Nos. 75 and 76. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 claims to have purchased 13 kathas of land in plot No. 75 while petitioner No. 3 claims to have purchased 13 kathas of land in plot No. 75. Petitioner No. 4 also purchased 13 Kathas of land in plot Nos. 75 and 76. All the sale deeds are dated 2-7-1983 and all the petitioners claim that they applied formulation, and their names were mutated by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi by order dated 7-8-1985. The petitioners thereafter state they have sold portions of the lands acquired by them to other parties, and one of the persons so named is Rabindra Nath Dutta, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1287 of 1987(R). The petitioners claim to have raised some sort of constructions over the plots in question and that they were in peaceful possession on the lands in question. This has been denied by the respondents, taut it is not necessary for me to go into this disputed question of fact. The grievance of the petitioners is that without issuance of notice under Sec.3(a) of the Act, respondent No. 3 has served a notice upon them dated 5-1-1987 fixing a date for hearing of the objections before respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector, Ranchi. These objections were filed by these petitioners in connection with acquisition of their lands under the Act. The petitioners contend that since no notice was served upon them either under Sections 3(a), 4 or 7 of the Act, the impugned notice dated 5-1-1987 (Annexure-2) is invalid. It has further been stated that the Additional Collector, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) without providing sufficient time, and without hearing the petitioners, has rejected the objection petitions filed by them without assigning any valid reason for acquisition of the land of the petitioners. The order sheet of the Additional Collector has been filed as Annexure-3. It has further been stated that the Additional Collector, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) without providing sufficient time, and without hearing the petitioners, has rejected the objection petitions filed by them without assigning any valid reason for acquisition of the land of the petitioners. The order sheet of the Additional Collector has been filed as Annexure-3. The petitioners have in their writ application mentioned other reason for which they contend that the order (Annexure-3) is invalid, but before me the ground mentioned in paragraph 22 of the writ application was pressed namely, that the order passed by the Additional Collector justifying the acquisition of the land on the ground that the land was being used as a play-ground for the children of the Military personnel, is not a ground for the acquisition of the land under Section 7 of the Act, and was not a public purpose within the meaning of the Act. 5. The other writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1287 of 1987(R) has been preferred by Rabindra Nath Dutta, who as stated earlier, is a vendee from petitioner No. 1. Gyan Roy of C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 1987(R). He has pressed the same grounds in support of his writ petition. 6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 1987(R) on 24-3-1988 but no counter affidavit was filed in C.W.J.C. No. 1287 of 1987(R). When the matter was taken up for hearing on 23-5-1988, on the request of the parties both the writ applications were taken up for hearing together. 7. It appears from the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 1987(R), and that is not disputed by the petitioners in both the writ applications, that the lands in question form part of a much larger area of land requisitioned in the year 1943 under the then Defence of India Rules. The requisitioning was continued under the provisions of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Power) Ordinance, 1946 (Ordinance 19 of 1946) and under the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947. According to the respondents, the land came under occupation of the Army and since then has continued as such. Yearly compensation as fixed was being regularly deposited in the name of Dr. Amia Kumar Roy Chawdhury with the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi. The petitioners claim title through the aforesaid Dr. Roy Chowdhury and his family members. According to the respondents, the land came under occupation of the Army and since then has continued as such. Yearly compensation as fixed was being regularly deposited in the name of Dr. Amia Kumar Roy Chawdhury with the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi. The petitioners claim title through the aforesaid Dr. Roy Chowdhury and his family members. The Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 was to expire on 31-3-1952. Before that, on 15-1-1952 the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1952 was promulgated, on 14-3-1952, the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 replaced the Ordinance. According to the petitioners, though the life of the Act was for a period of six years, its life was extended from time to time and the requisitions continued under the various amendment Acts, which had the effect of extending the life of the Act for various periods. The petitioners contend that by Amendment Act 2 of 1975, Sec. 6(1-A) was amended and a maximum period of ten years was provided in place of five years, for which properties might be retained under requisition. According to the petitioners by reason of the Amendment Act 2 of 1075, all lands under requisition stood released after 10th March, 1980 i.e. upon expiry of a period of ten years from the commencement of Amending Act 1 of 1970. The first contention, therefore, was that the issuance of the notice (Annexure-2) was illegal and invalid since the Act had already expired and there was therefore no question of acquiring any land under an Act which had ceased to exist. In reply thereto, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners are not correct in stating that the life of the Act was not extended thereafter. They have drawn my notice to the provisions of Central Act 20 of 1985 whereby the life of the Act was further extended till the expiry of seventeen years for the date of commencement of Amending Act 1 of 1970. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this point further when it was pointed out to him that the acquisition proceeding in the instant case was started before the expiry of the Act, and the notification under Section 7 of the Act in Form-J had also been issued before the expiry of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not press this point further when it was pointed out to him that the acquisition proceeding in the instant case was started before the expiry of the Act, and the notification under Section 7 of the Act in Form-J had also been issued before the expiry of the Act. 8. The second submission urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the use to which the property under requisition is subjected, must satisfy and conform to the purposes envisaged by the law under which it was originally requisitioned, and not merely the purpose contemplated under Sec.3 of the Act, in order to attract the validating provisions container! in Sec.24 of the Act. It was consequently argued that the purpose for which the lands were originally taken under requisition under the then Defence of India Rules, 1939 having ceased to exist, further retention of the lands, or the impugned acquisition, is illegal, and constitutes mala fide, even though the professed purpose may conform to the requirements of Sec.3 of the Act. It appears from Annexure-O to the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 1987(R) that the lands were requisitioned under an order dated 1-4-1943. The order states that the acquisition was considered expedient for securing the defence of British India and the efficient prosecution of the war." The submission of the petitioners is that since the lands in question were being used as a playground for the children of the military personnel, as would be obvious from the order dated 17-1-1987 as contained in Annexure-3, the lands could not be continued in requisition, and could not be acquired under Section 7 of the Act. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the respondents in paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 25-8-1988, that the lands have been under requisition since 1-4-1943 and have been under occupation of the Army. The total area of the lands acquired in this block is 3.37 acres. A number of quarters and houses have been constructed on the lands in question at the cost of the Central Government which was more than Rs. 12,00,000 in the year 1971. The Army personnel are residing in the houses and quarters constructed, and only some portions are vacant which are also required for army personnel. A number of quarters and houses have been constructed on the lands in question at the cost of the Central Government which was more than Rs. 12,00,000 in the year 1971. The Army personnel are residing in the houses and quarters constructed, and only some portions are vacant which are also required for army personnel. It will be difficult for this Court to go into this disputed question of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioners have not produced any material before me to show that the lands are not at all being used for a purpose which is not a public purpose within the meaning of the Act. On the contrary, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners conceded that the purpose to which lands have been put may be public purpose within the meaning of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the observation made in the order of the Additional Collector while disposing of the objections that the lands are used for play-ground for the children of the army personnel. That itself will not establish that the lands have been put to any use which is not a public purpose being the purpose of the Union. The respondents contend that large number of residential quarters have been constructed in which the families of the army personnel are residing. If that be so, some open space is required in such a residential complex and it may be that some vacant land is being used as a play-ground. That by itself, in my view will not affect the legal position, and on the materials placed before me, it is not possible for me to hold that the lands are being used for a purpose other than a public purpose as contemplated in Sections 3 and 7 of the Act. The submission that since the lands were requisition under the Defence of India Rules as a part of the countrys deffence efforts in World War II, the same cannot be continued when there is no war, must be rejected. The requisition under the Defence of India Rules was continued under the Act, and under Sec.24 of the Act, properties which were subject to requisition under the earlier to Acts or the Ordinance are deemed to be the property requisitioned under Sec.3 of the Act. The requisition under the Defence of India Rules was continued under the Act, and under Sec.24 of the Act, properties which were subject to requisition under the earlier to Acts or the Ordinance are deemed to be the property requisitioned under Sec.3 of the Act. In this view of the matter, if the property is continued in requisition for any public purpose being a purpose of the Union, such a requisition cannot be challenged. Moreover, providing residence to the Defence personnel certainly was for securing the defence of this country. The second submission also fails. 9. The third submission urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the opinion on necessity regarding acquisition must be made by the Central Government and not by any officer delegated with the power to act under the Act. It was contended that in the instant case the Central Government had not decided or determined under Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act that the property must be acquired under the Act. The decision of the Central Government in this regard was a condition precedent to the exercise of power to acquire requisitioned property under Section 7 of the Act. To appreciate this submission it will be useful to quote the provisions of Section 7 of the Act which are as follows : Power to acquire requisitioned property : (1) Where any property is subject to requisition the Central Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire the property for a public purpose, at any time acquire such property by publishing in the official Gazette a notice to the effect that the Central Government has decided to acquire the property in pursuance of this section : Provided that before issuing such notice, the Central Government shall call upon the owner of, or any other person who, in the opinion of the Central Government, may be interested in, such property to show cause why the property should not be acquired; and after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person interested in the property and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, the Central Government may pass such orders as it deems fit. (2) When a notice as aforesaids published in the Official Gazette, the requisitioned property shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the Central Government fee from all encumbrances and the period of requisition of such property shall end. (3) No property shall be acquired under this section except in the following circumstances, namely :- (a) Where any works have, during the period of requisition, been constructed on, in or over, the property wholly or partially at the expense of the Central Government and the Government decides that the value of, or the right to use, such works should be secured or preserved for the purposes of Government; or (b) where the cost of restoring the property to its condition at the time of its requisition would, in the determination of the Central Government, be excessive and the owner declines to accept release from requisition of the property without payment of compensation for so restoring the property. (4) Any decision or determination of the Central Government under Sub-section (3) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. (5) For the purposes of Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) "works" includes buildings, structures and improvements of every description. 10. Section 7 of the Act vests power in the Central Government to acquire requisitioned property for a public purpose by publishing in the official Gazette a notice to the effect that the Central Government has decided to acquire the property in pursuance of Section 7. However, before such a notice can be published the parties interested have to be heard, and cause shown if any, considered. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that once a notice is published in the official Gazette; the requisitioned property shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the Central Gazette. Sub-section (3) however, provides that no property shall be acquired under Section 7 of the Act except in the two circumstances enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 7. Sub-section (3) however, provides that no property shall be acquired under Section 7 of the Act except in the two circumstances enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 7. The Central Government has, therefore, to apply its mind to the facts of the case and to come to a decision that the acquisition of the property is justified in view of the existence of circumstances either in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 7. If the Government comes to such a decision or determination, its decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court as declared under Sub-section (4) of Section 7. Having regard to these provisions, it must be held that the power to acquire requisitioned property under Section 7 of the Act vested in the Central Government can be exercised only if the circumstances mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (3) exist. The Central Government must come to a decision on, consideration of relevant materials that either or both the circumstances exist, and if such decision or determination is made by the Central Government, the same shall be final. It was submitted before me that no such decision has been taken by the Central Government before issuance of the notification dated 27-24987 acquiring the lands in question. I may state at the outset that no such specific ground has been taken in the writ applications, but in C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 1987(R) the validity of the notice dated 27-2-1987. (Annexure-C) has been assailed by praying for amendment of the writ application claiming the aforesaid relief. It has been submitted in the aforesaid application that the sold notification (Annexure-C) was ultra vires and beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No. 4 and the mandatory provisions of Section 7 of the Act had not been complied with. It was also challenged on the ground that no notice had been given to the owners and that it was a colourable exercise of power. 11. Both the writ applications were taken up for hearing on 23rd May, 1988 and the matter was adjourned for further hearing. The writ applications were, thereafter heard on several dates. As observed earlier, a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 (Union of India) on 24-3 1988 in C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 1987(R). 11. Both the writ applications were taken up for hearing on 23rd May, 1988 and the matter was adjourned for further hearing. The writ applications were, thereafter heard on several dates. As observed earlier, a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 (Union of India) on 24-3 1988 in C.W.J.C. No. 276 of 1987(R). From this counter affidavit it transpired that a notice for acquisition of the lands in question had already been issued on 27-2-1987 which was Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. In view of this averment in the counter affidavit, the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 278 of 1987(R) filed an application on 28th May, 1988 to amend the writ application and to challenge the legal validity of Annexure-C, the notice acquiring the lands in question under Section 7 of the Act dated 27-2-1987. Obviously therefore, the grounds on which Annexure-C was sought to be challenged by an application for amendment of the writ application, could not be relied to in the counter affidavit earlier filed by the Union of India. On 1-8-1988 when the submission was pressed before me, I gave an opportunity to the Union of India to file another counter affidavit stating whether circumstances enumerated in Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act were taken into account by the Central Government while deciding, upon the acquisition of lands in question. If the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act were taken into account, whether the Government took any decision under the said sub-section. The Union of India was directed to produce a copy of the said decision, if any, and was also permitted to produce such material facts before the Court which it considered necessary. Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 1-8-1988, the Union of India has filed a supplementary counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 1287 of 1987(R). The Union of India in paragraphs 20 and 23 of its supplementary counter affidavit asserted that the Government of India had taken into consideration the factors as required under Section 7(3) of the Act and had decided to acquire the requisitioned lands paragraph 23 of the supplementary counter affidavit is as follows :- That before deciding for acquisition of requisitioned land the Government of India did considered the factors mentioned in Section 7(3) of the Act and then decided to acquire the lands in question. The file containing these facts are kept in the Ministry and which are of ton secret and priviledge documents. Some of the papers which are in possession of the deponent would be shown to this Hon ble Court at the time of hearing. 12. On 31-8-1988 the Union of India was directed to produce the file referred to in the supplementary counter affidavit under sealed cover for consideration by the court. This was done with a view to maintain the confidentiality of the file. The petitioners also had no objection to this course being followed and they submitted that they had no objection if the Court itself looked into the file and satisfied itself that the Government of India had taken into account all relevant considerations and had decided to acquire the lands after following the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, Mr. Debi Prasad learned counsel for the Union of India, handed over to me the relevant file being File No. 777/6/63LA (Cell). He also flagged the pages in the file which he wanted me to peruse. From this file, it appears that the proposal for acquisition of the requisitioned lands measuring 809.13 acres had been under consideration of the Ministry of Defence. From the notings at Item Nos. 50, 51, 52 and 53 it appears that particulars were desired about the defence assets which had been created upon the lands in question. Such a report was received from the Director, D.L. and C., Central Command. After perusing the aforesaid report, it was found that defence assets had been created on the subject land by army authorities and as such the acquisition could be made under the Act. After considering the notings in the file the Assistant Director-General (Defence Estates) noted in favour of acquisition of the lands. It appears that these blocks of land were being considered for acquisition, and it was found that the defence assets had been created on all the three blocks of land. On the file, there is a copy of a letter addressed to the Chief of Army Staff. New Delhi dated 30th April, 1986 whereby the sanction of the President to the acquisition of 809.13 acres of requisitioned land under the Act was conveyed. 13. On the file, there is a copy of a letter addressed to the Chief of Army Staff. New Delhi dated 30th April, 1986 whereby the sanction of the President to the acquisition of 809.13 acres of requisitioned land under the Act was conveyed. 13. While there is no specific order of the Central Government deciding to acquire the requisitioned land in question in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 7, from a perusal of the file. I have no doubt in my mind that the matter was considered by the Government having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act and after a complete discussion in the file and after obtaining a report about the extent of the assets created on the lands in question, the President of India was pleased to accord sanction for acquisition of requisitioned lands under the Act. I am, therefore, satisfied that the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 were complied with in the instant eases. 14. In the result, these writ applications fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.