N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition challenging the proposed acquisition as evidenced by Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, Annexure A. Five different block numbers are involved and the details are as under :survey No. Block No. Owner 1121/2 1121/3 1121/4 1121/5 1121/6 776 775 772 771 773 petitioner No. 3 Petitioner No. 2 Petitioner No. 4 Petitioner No. 1 Petitioner No. 5 the challenge is based on Baroda Development plan finalised by the State Government as per its notification dated 22-12- 1983. The disputed lands fall into agricultural zone as per the said development plan. For this reference may be made to annexures B and C to the petition. ( 2 ) THE impugned Notification was preceded by a Notification under Section 4 as per Annexure D, in response to which, the petitioners did file their objections as per annexure E. Thereafter, the impugned Notification came to be issued and hence the petition. 943 ( 3 ) SUBMISSION was made largely to the effect that keeping in mind the future development of the City of Baroda, a development plan is evolved, that too to serve the public purpose in larger sense and unless the plan itself is varied or modified by the state Government after following the procedure prescribed, the Government cannot proceed straightway to initiate acquisition proceedings. This would be more so, when the proposed acquisition is going to be for a Company. ( 4 ) FACTUALLY the latter submission is correct. Section 4 and Section 6 Notifications clearly indicate that the acquisition is for providing loading facility to respondent No. 3-Gujarat Refinery which is an undertaking of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The acquiring body is also joined and is represented by learned Counsel Shri R. P. Bhatt. 5 Developing the aforesaid argument further, Shri S. B. Vakil appearing for the petitioner strongly urged that this sort of acquisition proceeding would run counter to the very idea behind evolving a development plan for a city or an area more particularly when the zone in which the disputed lands are situated is reserved for agricultural activity and to permit a patently non-agricultural use in this manner would distort the development plan itself. The sanctioned plan is preceded by a draft development plan which has to take care of the future use of the lands which includes reservation of land for public purposes as specified in clause (b) of sub-section 1 of section 12 as also designation of area in clause (c) of said sub-section (1) as well as provision for controlling and regulating the use as per clause (m) thereof. The provision for preventing or removing pollution is also to be made as per clause (m) and by way of residuary provision in clause (o) proposals for public or other purposes are envisaged. ( 5 ) AFTER the plan is approved and finalised, if any variation is to be made requirement of Section 19 of Gujarat Town planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 will have to be seen. Sub-section (1) thereof, provides that on a proposal from an area development authority in that behalf or otherwise, if the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to make any variation in the final development plan, it may proceed to do so and then procedure is prescribed. ( 6 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri Vakil, therefore, submitted that unless the procedure under Section 19 is followed, and plan is varied, the plan having been approved, the land in question cannot be used for the aforesaid purpose. ( 7 ) LEARNED Sr. Council Shri R. P. Bhatt agrees that so far as statutory provisions are concerned, the position as stated on behalf of the petitioner has to be accepted. However, the acquiring body will take care to see that these requirements are fulfilled and the land under acquisition even no completion of the proceedings under the land Acquisition Act, will not be put to use for which it is sought to be acquired without the plan having been varied under section 19. ( 8 ) LEARNED Sr. Counsel Shri Bhatt drew our attention to various provisions of the land Acquisition Act and submitted that any land is subject to acquisition and there is no fetters on the power of either the central Government or the State Government muchless, therefore, could it be read into the provisions of the said Acquisition act, restrictions on account of variation procedure has not been completed under the said Town Planning Act. ( 9 ) IN our opinion, this point is well taken. ( 9 ) IN our opinion, this point is well taken. The submission of L. A. Shri Vakil comes down to this. The concept of public purpose envisaged in the Land Acquisition act would be subordinated by the provisions of the Town Planning Act, if this submission is accepted. Viewed from other angle, his submission also means that unless the plan is varied, no acquisition proceedings can be initiated. This would mean that one more procedure has to be followed. By summarising the argument of Shri S. B. Vakil in this manner, we are not trying to suggest that the procedure under Section 19 of the Town Planning Act is a mere formality. We are fully conscious of the fact that it has own utility and purpose. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, the concept in the Land acquisition Act is "public purpose" and concept to be served in Town Planning Act is public interest as could be gathered from section 19 sub-section 1 of the Town Planning act. In an agricultural zone, whether the proposed project of providing loading facility, if put, would serve the public interest or not, has to be seen under Section 19 of the Town "planning Act by the Government as and when it takes up the question. But it serves the public purpose under the land Acquisition Act, does not seem to be in dispute at all. ( 11 ) BY now, it would be noted that Land acquisition Act talks of public purpose and the Town Planning Act under Section 49 talks of public interest. The dictionary meaning of these two words, as could be gathered from Concised Oxford Dictionary [ (8th Edition (1990)] defines "interest" to mean "concern" or "curiocity" among other meaning; while the word "purpose" is defined to be indicating "object to be attained" or "thing intended". Thus, it would appear that while attaining the intended object with reference to that very entity i. e. , "public", concern as to future development has to be borne in mind. The two concepts, in our opinion, would not be conflicting at all. Muchless, therefore, there could be an interpretation leading to the position that public interest under the Town Planning Act must get precedence over the concept of "public purpose" under the Land Acquisition Act: as indicated above, this exactly is the submission on behalf of the petitioners. The two concepts, in our opinion, would not be conflicting at all. Muchless, therefore, there could be an interpretation leading to the position that public interest under the Town Planning Act must get precedence over the concept of "public purpose" under the Land Acquisition Act: as indicated above, this exactly is the submission on behalf of the petitioners. ( 12 ) IN this background, when the challenge is to the proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, we do not see any substance in it. ( 13 ) OUR learned colleagues of this Court, on different occasions had to deal with more or less similar points and copies of their judgments are produced before us. Out of them, the latest one is given by justice B. C. Patel and Justice R. R. Jain in special Civil Application Nos. 8613, 8614 and 8615 all of 1990 where the land proposed to be acquired was in green belt and the learned Judge repelled the challenge based on the provisions of Gujarat Town planning and Urban Development Act. As in the instant case, in that matter also objections were raised by the owners of the land based on the fact that the area is included in the green belt. Special Civil application No. 1692 of 1990 is dealt with by G. T. Nanavati, as he then was and B. J. Shethna, JJ where the petition came to be rejected summarily and notice came to be discharged in the green belt. Noting that the state Government has power to vary the scheme under the said Town Planning Act, the learned Judges dealt with the objection in the aforesaid manner. ( 14 ) A more elaborate judgment is to be found in connection with ad interim order which came to be passed in Special Civil application No. 1647 of 1991 on 19th august 1991. At interim stage, permission was sought by the petitioner to develop the land claiming that the developer themselves will be serving the very purpose for which the Municipal Corporation of the City of ahmedabad was going to development namely Swimming Pool and Civic Centre. However, on examination of record, it was found that the developers were going to construct Sagar Apartments and the facilities in the complex was going to be restricted to the use of residents of the complex alone. However, on examination of record, it was found that the developers were going to construct Sagar Apartments and the facilities in the complex was going to be restricted to the use of residents of the complex alone. Giving emphasis on the public interest, as envisaged by the plan, the learned Judge, G. N. Ray, the then Honble chief Justice and C. K. Thakkar, J. categorically held that once the plots are given to the Municipal Corporation for the aforesaid purpose, they alone can develop it and they alone can carry out the purpose namely health centre, social service centre, etc. Private parties cannot be permitted to develop the same though incidentally it may serve the said purpose restricted only to the members or the lessee of the complex. The order of status quo came to be passed earlier therefore, was made absolute till the disposal of the petition. ( 15 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri Vakil very strongly urged that merely because the government has got power under Section 19 to vary the plan, it would not mean that the Government will do so. Moreover, for this purpose, proposal has to be moved by the concerned development authority. However, the word "otherwise" occurring in sub-section (1), in our opinipn, is of sufficient wide amplitude to cover in it the possibility of the Government being approached by the acquiring body and therefore, this ground sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be sustained. ( 16 ) JUDGMENT Today 1991 (3) S. C. 172 - bangalore Medical Trust v. B. S. Muddappa and Others was cited on behalf of the petitioners. However, it is obvious that it has no relevance with the matter before us. The learned Judges of the Supreme court were dealing with a matter where the space reserved for a park in accordance with a formally approved and published development scheme in terms of the Act, was sought to be allotted to a private person for the purpose of constructing a hospital. This could have resulted into deprivation of the park meant for general public and would have had long term effect on the environment also. This could have resulted into deprivation of the park meant for general public and would have had long term effect on the environment also. In the case before us, the public purpose sought to be served under the Land Acquisition Act, is in the nature of providing loading facility to a public Sector Undertaking which by itself is capable of serving larger public interest and there being no private interest involved, the objections raised on the footing of the said Supreme Court Judgment by private owners of the land in form of the present petition, in our opinion, cannot be sustained. ( 17 ) IF any authority is needed as to the state Government having power to modify a plan prepared by an Urban Development authority, it is to be found in 33 (2) GLR 958. There it has been held that all the decisions of the Urban Development Authority are subject to the overall control of the State Government and for this reference is made to Section 122 of the said Development act. In the instant case, this will have to be read along with Section 19, while in the said Gujarat decision, the matter was dealt with under Section 122 read with section 17. ( 18 ) AIR 1996 SC 697 was cited by learned Sr. Counsel Shri Bhatt where it has been categorically held that though in the master plan and zonal development plan, the area is shown to be agricultural green, if it is sought to be acquired for public purpose of setting up sewage treatment plan, it cannot be said to be contrary to the plan. It was noted by the learned Judges that the proposed severage plant would plant would protect the environment control pollution and in the process maintain and develop the agricultural green. Obviously, therefore, it would be in furtherance of the development plan. No doubt, in the instant case, it has not been urged either by the state or by the acquiring body that the proposed loading platform facility would be in furhterance of the development plan. Obviously, therefore, it would be in furtherance of the development plan. No doubt, in the instant case, it has not been urged either by the state or by the acquiring body that the proposed loading platform facility would be in furhterance of the development plan. However, even in the area, where development plan is finalised, when compared with the area where no such plan is in existence, mere existence of a plan cannot be allowed to shackle all the powers of the State or the central Government, as the case may be, when the acquisition is resorted to for a public purpose under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ( 19 ) THE fact situation namely area having plan and area having no plan whatsoever, from the standpoint of individual owner would remain the same and in each case, the owner would be losing the land. The development plan only restricts the use to which the land can be put to by its owner. The plan, if anything thus restricts, the usually unfettered right of an owner. Recognising the possibility of putting the land reserved for a particular purpose to a totally different use a provision like Section 19 of the Development Act has been incorporated therein. There also, the underlying idea is to serve public interest. There, individual interest has no significance at all. Viewed in this background, while serving public interest under the Development Act, individual interest is made subservient coupled with the provisions of the Land acquisition Act to serve public purpose when individual interest is to be extinguished, we do not see any conflict between the two. Thus analysed, the submission on behalf of 1; the petitioner that variation of the plan under Section 19 of the Town planning Act must precede; the exercise of power under the Land Acquisition Act would stand answered. Without any hesitation, therefore, we hold that the powers under Acquisition Act, can be exercised without waiting for the variation of the plan and the procedure under the development plan for variation will have to be gone into either by the State Government on its own or by the acquiring body requesting the government to exercise its power. There is no reason for us to suspect that this will not be done. There is no reason for us to suspect that this will not be done. Once the power under Section 19 is exercised, obviously, the plan itself would stand varied and therefore, the objection based on the plan would not survive. In the ultimate analysis, we do not find any substance in the challenge. Hence, the petition is rejected. Notice is discharged. No order on C. A. Interim relief granted in c. A. is vacated. No order as to costs. * * * ( 20 ) AFTER the pronouncement of the judgment, L. A. Mr. Vakil appearing for the petitioners requests that the interim relief granted earlier be containued for a period of 4 weeks, as the petitioners want to carry the matter to higher forum. His request is granted. The interim relief granted earlier is continued for a period of 4 weeks from today. .