By letter dated 2.1.87 the Managing Director of Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. requested the learned Collector. Dibrugarh to acquire a plot of land measuring 4 bigha 1 katha 7½ lechas covered by DagNo.173 Kha, 173Khaand 173 Ga of Rehabari Ward, Dibrugarh town belonging to writ petitioner for the purpose of setting up an Industrial Estate, The said letter is available at Annexure 1 to the affidavit-in-opposition. Thereafter, a notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 2.3.1987 and it was duly published in the Gazette. In the said notification, the public purpose was indicated, namely, setting up of Industrial Estate by Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited. Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued on 6.4.87 substituting the expression 'Industrial Estate' by the words 'Industrial Estate/Commercial Estate. Admittedly, this corrigendum was not published in the Gazette. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. It may be stated that when the notification dated 2.3.87 was issued, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. During the pendency of this petition, the above corrigendum was issued and accordingly the writ petition was amended. 2. Heard Mr. NM Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AC Buragohain, learned Govt. Advocate assisted by Mrs, M. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Mr. Lahiri has submitted that public purposes, namely Industrial Estate and Commercial Estate are quite different and as such the impugned notification and the corrigendum are bad in law for non-application of mind. That apart, according to learned counsel if the State .Government wanted to change the public purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired, a fresh notification ought to have been issued. Further according to learned counsel, the corrigendum cannot amend the notification as If was not published in the Gazette. 4. Mr. Buragohain has taken me through section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and has urged that there was no change of public purpose for acquiring the land. In fact the learned counsel wants to state that both Industrial Estate and Commercial Estate are same. Learned counsel has further stated that this notification could not be gazetted at the writ petitioner approached this Court and this submission has no force at all as even during the pendency of this petition, the corrigendum was issued. 5. In fact the learned counsel wants to state that both Industrial Estate and Commercial Estate are same. Learned counsel has further stated that this notification could not be gazetted at the writ petitioner approached this Court and this submission has no force at all as even during the pendency of this petition, the corrigendum was issued. 5. I am also unable to accept the contention of the learned Govt Advocate that Industrial Estate and Commercial Estate are same. From the reading of notification and corrigendum, it appears to me that the State Govt. was not sure whether the land was required for any public purpose. The object of section 4 is very clear that before issuing such notification, the Goyt has to make up his mind for the public purpose for which the land is.to.be acquired. 6. Situation this, I am of the opinion that the corrigendum at Annexure 3A is bad in law and so also the notification dated 2.3.87 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Annexure 3. 7. In the result, both the notifications and the corrigendum are quashed and the petition is accepted. It is made clear that this decision will not prevent the State Government to start the proceeding afresh if the land is required for any public purpose. 8. However, the petitioner may also approach this Court if there is any Illegality or irregularity in the event fresh notification is issued by the State Government. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.