Judgment : These two writ petitions relate to the validity of the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), issued under G.O.Ms.No.891, Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 110. 1989 and the subsequent declaration under Sec.6, in G.O.Ms.No.10, Backward Classes and Most Backward classes Welfare, dated 11. 1991. .2. The petitioner in W.P.No.6008 of 1991 owns 54 1/2 cents in R.S.No.51/3, Keelmalai Village, Gin-gee Taluk, he having acquired the same in a partition effected in the year 1993. The other half of the property of the extent of 54 1/2 cents was allotted to his brother, who subsequently sold that property on 110. 1978, to one Harikrishnan, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.6007 of 1991. The acquisition is for the alleged purpose of providing house sites to certain dobies and barbers of Keelamali village. The enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act was conducted on 25. 1990. The petitioners filed their objections and over-ruling the same, the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was issued on 11. 1991 The award enquiry was conducted on 13. 1991 and the award was passed on 20.3.1991. .3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues in the forefront that the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act itself is vitiated and consequently, all the further proceedings are liable to be quashed. The argument is that the purpose of acquisition has not been set out in clear and categorical manner and no reasonable person could ascertain the purpose of acquisition, from the said notification. To be more exact, the Notification published in the Gazette is as follows: ."Whereas, it appears to the Government of Tamil Nadu that the lands specified below and situated in Keelmalai Village, Gingee taluk, South Arcot District, are needed for a public purpose, to wit, the provision, of Village 113, notice to that effect is hereby given to all Village 113, notice to that effect is hereby given to all to whom it may concern in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)". [Italics mine]. .4. Apparently certain words are missing, after the words ‘to wit, the provision of, Without those words, the notification does not convey any meaning and does not say the purpose of acquisition. From the records produced by the learned Government Pleader. [Italics mine]. .4. Apparently certain words are missing, after the words ‘to wit, the provision of, Without those words, the notification does not convey any meaning and does not say the purpose of acquisition. From the records produced by the learned Government Pleader. I find that the draft notification sent by the Special Tahsildar on 12. 1989 has been corrected, deleting the words "house sites to the dobies and barbers of. I do not propose to make an enquiry as to who was responsible for the deletion of such words and it is for the respondents to make an investigation on that aspect. In my opinion, the notification, as published in the gazette, without those words, vitiates the entire proceedings. Unless the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act gives the necessary particulars referred to in the sub-section, interested persons cannot file their objections. Sec.4(l) of the Act says that whenever it appears to the Government that any land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, then a notification may be made in the Gazette and the other steps can be taken. Unless the public purpose is mentioned in the Notification, it will not be possible, for an owner of the land to file his objections to the acquisition proceedings. For instance, an owner may be interested in saying that the public purpose mentioned, is not really a public purpose or that a particular public purpose can be achieved in some other manner or that there is no requirement at all to acquire the land for the said public purpose. 5. In fact, on the facts of this case, the failure to mention the public purpose assumes importance, because, the contention of the petitioners, is that there are no dobies and barbers in Keelmalai village. The only four barbers and the only one dobhi have been named by the petitioners. It is further stated that all those five persons have lands of their own and do not require any assistance from the Government by way of assignment of house sites. It is however admitted by the petitioners, that in the notice in Form 3-A issued under Sec.5-A of the Act, the respondents did not mention correctly the purpose of the acquisition, as, for providing house sites to dobies and barbers of Keelmalai village. It is however admitted by the petitioners, that in the notice in Form 3-A issued under Sec.5-A of the Act, the respondents did not mention correctly the purpose of the acquisition, as, for providing house sites to dobies and barbers of Keelmalai village. In my opinion this will not cure the defect in the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act. The Government, which exercises the power of eminent domain in acquiring lands of individuals, should bestow their best attention before embarking on land acquisition proceedings. The deprivation of the lands of a citizen cannot be undertaken lightly. It has been well established that any defect at any stage of the land acquisition proceedings, will vitiate the very acquisition. Even though the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act is only a preliminary notice, it cannot dispense with the basic necessities of mentioning the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. 6. After the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and after rejecting the objetions of the petitioners, at least, while issuing the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, the respondents could have been a little more careful. When we turn to the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, this is what one finds: “Under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894), the Government of Tamil Nadu hereby declares that the lands specified in the schedule and below and measuring 0.44.0 hectare, be the same a little more or less, are needed for a public purpose, to wit for the provision of house sites to dhobies and barbers (Most Backward Class). A plan of the lands is kept in the office of the Special Tahsil-dar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Gingee and may be inspected at any time during office hours. [Italics mine]” This declaration is worse than the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act, because it says that the land is required for the provision of house-sites to dhobies and barbers (Most Backward Classes). In the light of the objections raised by the petitioners, one does not know for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired. Certainly not for dhobies and barbers in the entire State of Tamil Nadu. In this connection, the averments in the counter-affidavit, also becomes relevant. In the light of the objections raised by the petitioners, one does not know for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired. Certainly not for dhobies and barbers in the entire State of Tamil Nadu. In this connection, the averments in the counter-affidavit, also becomes relevant. In para.8 of the counter-affidavit in W.P.No.6008 of 1991 it is stated that necessary survey was made it was identified that there are about 20 houseless vannars and navithars and accordingly, the 4(1) proposals were initiated. In para.14 of the same counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the dhobies and barbers belonging to various villages, who have come down to Anandapuram(a part of Keelmalai village) and settled and eking (sic.) their livelihood. The houseless barbers and dhobies permanently settled at Anandapuram (Kilamalai) were identified and enumerated and hence the averments are untenable’. 7. Therefore, there is considerable controversy as to the persons, for whose benefit the lands were sought to be acquired. As I have already pointed out, the Government should not embark upon land acquisition proceedings without considering the question whether a particular land is or is not needed for a public purpose. Such a decision cannot be taken lightly without first ascertaining the requirements of a particular community or a particular section of the society, in the matter of the provision of house sites. In this case, prima facie, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not considered the matter properly on the basis of any valid material, to come to the conclusion that the land is needed for particular public purpose. In any event, the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act and the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, are, on the face of it, illegal and vitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the records. They are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. However it is open to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings from the stage of 4(1) notification, if and only if, there is need for provision of house sites to any particular section of the people. Reserving this liberty to the respondents, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the costs of the writ petitions to the petitioners and the same is fixed at Rs.1,000 (one set).