ORDER 1. The petitioners are challenging the order of the High Court dated 23-8-1993 in C.W.P. No. 4776 of 1992 wherein the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners. 2. The contention of Shri Gobinda Mukhoty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the Government having given exemption to the petitioners lands under Section 9 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Amendment) Act, 1988 and permitted the land-owner to develop a colony and the petitioners having purchased the same from them, exercise of the power under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the same colonization purpose, though for economically weaker sections of the society, is illegal. It is also contended that on an earlier occasion the Government had conceded in the course of the proceedings in C.W.P. No. 2427 of 1991 and the judgment dated 7-9-1993, that in certain cases the lands on which factories or residential houses were existing had been exempted from the acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. So the Government is not justified in notifying the selfsame lands for the same purpose of colonization. We find no force in the contentions. 3. It is seen that the notification published under Section 4(1) was for the development and utilisation of the lands for setting up colony for economically weaker sections in Gurgaon in Haryana under Haryana Urban Development Act, 1977. Acquisition of the lands to provide housing accommodation to economically weaker sections is for public purpose. Accordingly notification published under Section 4(1) in the State Gazette is legal and valid. A declaration under Section 6 in this behalf also was published thereby public purpose has been crystallised that the lands have been needed for public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation for the colony of economically weaker sections of the society. It is true that the predecessor of the petitioners had exemption of the lands under Section 9 for colonization under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Amendment) Act, 1988. The exemption was only to enable them to construct the colony, otherwise than in accordance with Section 3 of that Act, in which the owner of the Jands should have to obtain a licence to establish the colony in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. The exemption was only to enable them to construct the colony, otherwise than in accordance with Section 3 of that Act, in which the owner of the Jands should have to obtain a licence to establish the colony in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. The exemption, therefore, stands as no impediment when the Governor is satisfied that selfsame land is needed for any other public purpose. Exemption of some other lands referred to and conceded before the High Court in other writ petition would not stand in the way of the Governor to acquire the lands merely because there existed houses in the notified area. We do not have any material as to under what circumstances the exemption came to be given in those particular cases. However, it would not be a ground to quash the notification published under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. For Citation: 1995 Supp(2) SCC 54