JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---In both these writ petitions, the respondents are the same. Most of the facts are the same and points involved for consideration are the same. Hence, those are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1390/1987, the petitioner has contended that he is the owner of open plot bearing No. 79 situated at Shreynagar road, in Osmanpura locality of Aurangabad. Adjacent to this plot, the construction of the building named "Bachat Bhavan" is going on. Initially the construction of this building was started by the Small Savings Department i.e. respondent No. 4 and later on from 13-2-1987, the construction of Bachat Bhavan is transferred to Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, respondent No. 3. On 20-8-1987, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No. 2 issued a notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the petitioner, about the proposed acquisition of the petitioner's plot No. 79 for open compound of Bachat Bhavan. The petitioner has challenged this proposed acquisition of the plot on three grounds: (i) Mala fide (ii) Excess acquisition, and (iii) Changing the town plan without following the procedure, and in support of these three grounds, he has given the details in the petition and he has prayed that the proposed acquisition of plot No. 79, C.T.S. No. 14493/1 situated at Osmanpura be quashed. 3. The respondents have filed affidavits in return. 4. In Writ Petition No. 4120/1989, the petitioner has contended that he is the owner of plot No. 90/B bearing City Survey No. 14488/1 situated in Osmanpura. This plot is also adjacent to the plot where the respondents are constructing Bachat Bhavan. The petitioner received notice dated 20th August, 1987 being the notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, informing him that there was the proposal to acquire his plot for the compound of Bachat Bhavan and he was called upon to file his objection for the proposed acquisition. The petitioner accordingly submitted his objections under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and he received notice regarding hearing of the objections to be held on 30th June, 1988. The petitioner submitted all his papers before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner accordingly submitted his objections under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and he received notice regarding hearing of the objections to be held on 30th June, 1988. The petitioner submitted all his papers before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner thereafter received notice from respondent No. 2, dated 9th May, 1989, purporting to be a notice under section 9(3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, read with section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, published in Maharashtra Government Gazette, on 22nd December, 1988, in Part I, at page 1746. 5. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the acquisition of the plot on the same grounds on which there is challenge in Writ Petition No. 1390/1987. There is one more ground raised in this petition, that the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued more than one year after the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is illegal and the respondents cannot acquire the land on the basis of the said two notifications. 6. Shri P.R. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that original "Bachat Bhavan" was to be constructed on the plot adjacent to the plots of these two petitioners. However, the plans are changed and auditorium which is now known as "Shri Sant Eknath Rangmandir" is constructed on the said plot by Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. So, the very purpose for which the two plots were to be acquired is changed. Bachat Bhavan was to be constructed by respondent Nos. 1 and 4. However, the whole project was thereafter transferred to Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, and that has caused prejudice to the petitioners. 7. In this respect, the affidavit filed by the Assistant Director, Small Savings, Collector Office, Aurangabad, is relevant. He has mentioned that the Central Government fixes the target of small savings for each State and each State, in its own turn, fixes the target of small savings of each district and the work of collection of small savings is carried out district wise. In the said scheme, certain amount is distributed to districts as an incentive for achieving the target fixed by the State Government. The amount is given to the Collector of the District and he is authorised to use that amount as per the prescribed directives. In the said scheme, certain amount is distributed to districts as an incentive for achieving the target fixed by the State Government. The amount is given to the Collector of the District and he is authorised to use that amount as per the prescribed directives. Roughly about 50% amount is used on the basis of population in Municipal Corporation, Municipalities, Panchayat Samities; 20% of the said amount is used for State Government Employees Welfare Scheme, 15% for Zilla Parishad Employees Scheme, 5% for sports and 5% for development activities in Small Savings Branches. 8. The affiant, Shri Mulay, has further stated that Bachat Bhavan, in question, was constructed from 20% incentive grant from the State Government, for State Government Employees Welfare Fund. However, later on when the construction of Bachat Bhavan was transferred to the Municipal Corporation, that amount was recovered from the incentive payable to the Municipal Corporation during the relevant years. He has further stated that the plan of Bachat Bhavan was providing facilities for cultural activities. It was transferred to the Municipal Corporation in phases. The first stage was taken on completion of construction of auditorium and later on entire portion was transferred to the Corporation. This transfer was effected under an agreement. 9. So, from this affidavit, it is very clear that the respondent No. 4, Assistant Director of Small Savings, has practically no concern with this construction of Bachat Bhavan. The name "Bachat Bhavan" is given because the funds for construction of the building are given from the incentive received from the State Government on account of achieving target in collection of small savings. The Municipal Corporation is entitled to receive certain portion of incentive for carrying out development activities in Municipal Corporation area. As this building was not being constructed from any other State Funds or Municipal Corporation Funds but from incentive received on account of achieving target of small savings, it is named as "Bachat Bhavan". The construction was started by the State Government, as contended by the petitioner, and then it was transferred to the Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute about this position. 10. This building of Bachat Bhavan is constructed on the plot adjacent to the plots of the two petitioners. That plot is belonging to the Municipal Corporation. The construction was started by the State Government, as contended by the petitioner, and then it was transferred to the Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute about this position. 10. This building of Bachat Bhavan is constructed on the plot adjacent to the plots of the two petitioners. That plot is belonging to the Municipal Corporation. The various documents produced on record clearly indicate that right from beginning, Bachat Bhavan was planned for construction of auditorium and other rooms to be used for the purpose of auditorium and also on the first floor of the building, some other construction was to be carried out. It is not the case that after transfer of construction of Bachat Bhavan, it was converted into auditorium. The various documents filed on record by the Municipal Corporation along with the affidavit in reply clearly indicate that right from beginning, the plan was for construction of main building of auditorium and buildings for restaurants, suites, art gallery, etc. The construction of the building was going on openly adjacent to the plot of the petitioner. So, the petitioners were well aware that an auditorium and other buildings necessary for the proper use of the auditorium were being constructed on that plot. They were also aware that the whole project was transferred to the Municipal Council. 11. This was also made known to the petitioners by the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which mentions that the two plots were to be acquired for having the open space for Bachat Bhavan. The copy of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is produced on record by the respondents. It was published in the Gazette dated 3rd December, 1987. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that when the respondents first started the construction of Bachat Bhavan, certain portion belonging to the plots of the petitioners was included in the plan as per the original plans. An objection was raised and the Collector of Aurangabad visited the plot on 1-12-1982. The Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Shri Chaudhary from Town Planning Office, Officers from the City Survey Office, Assistant Director of Town Planning, Shri Mulay of Small Savings Department, so also, Assistant Collector, Aurangabad, were present. The Collector made the spot enquiry. The Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Shri Chaudhary from Town Planning Office, Officers from the City Survey Office, Assistant Director of Town Planning, Shri Mulay of Small Savings Department, so also, Assistant Collector, Aurangabad, were present. The Collector made the spot enquiry. He scrutinized proposed plan of Bachat Bhavan as well as the documents of the petitioners and Collector came to know that the plan of Bachat Bhavan was wrongly drawn. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the area of plot Nos. 79 and 90 of the two petitioners was included in the original plans. Shri Mulay, officer from Small Savings Department, made it clear that they did not require the area of plot Nos. 79 and 90 for the construction of Bachat Bhavan. After the spot inspection, a meeting was held in the chamber of the Collector and it was directed that the plans be modified excluding the area of plot Nos. 79 and 90. Thereafter, the plans were modified and the area of plot Nos. 79 and 90 belonging to the petitioners was excluded. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that there is the approach road of 30 feet width which is to the west of the plots of the petitioners. The respondents, while constructing Bachat Bhavan, caused encroachment on this road by dumping the construction material. Therefore, the way to the plot of the petitioners was obstructed. The petitioner, Shri Ropekar, therefore, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 879/1986, and the petitioner, Dr. Deshpande, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1001/1986 against the State of Maharashtra for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from causing obstruction in 30 feet wide road. Both these suits were decreed in favour of the petitioners as per the respective judgment and order in the two suits on 31-3-1987. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the respondents were very much annoyed because of these decrees passed against them. 15. Both these suits were decreed in favour of the petitioners as per the respective judgment and order in the two suits on 31-3-1987. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the respondents were very much annoyed because of these decrees passed against them. 15. To contend that there are mala fide on the part of the respondents for acquiring these two plots, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the respondents were having grudge against the petitioners because first there was objection by the respondents to the plans of Bachat Bhavan which was required to be changed because of the objection and then the filing of the two suits and decrees obtained against the State. The respondents, therefore, deliberately decided to acquire the two plots when, in fact, there was no need for such acquisition. 16. The original scheme for construction of Bachat Bhavan was on the plot belonging to the Municipal Corporation. While drawing the plans of the building, it appears that without taking proper care, the area from the plots belonging to the petitioners was included as part of the plot belonging to the Municipal Corporation. But when an objection was raised, the Collector personally visited the plot, made the spot enquiry, verified the situation and then the plan was modified excluding the portion of the plots belonging to the petitioners. All this happened in the year 1982. The concerned authorities had taken prompt steps because of the objections raised by the petitioners and even Shri Mulay, the then Assistant Director of Small Savings, conceded that the area of the plot Nos. 79 and 90 was not required for construction of the building of Bachat Bhavan. So, how far this action on the part of the officers of the respondent can be considered as a ground for having grudge against the petitioners. 17. The Collector, Assistant Collector, Chief Officer of Municipality, all were different individuals than those who took the action for acquisition of plot Nos. 79 and 90 for the compound of Bachat Bhavan, in the year 1986-87. There is nothing on record to indicate that the officers who had taken decision to acquire the plots of the petitioners for the compound of Bachat Bhavan had anything to do individually with respect to the dispute which was raised in the year 1982. 79 and 90 for the compound of Bachat Bhavan, in the year 1986-87. There is nothing on record to indicate that the officers who had taken decision to acquire the plots of the petitioners for the compound of Bachat Bhavan had anything to do individually with respect to the dispute which was raised in the year 1982. This is far fetched idea of the petitioners that because of the objection raised in the year 1982 by the petitioners to the plans drawn for the construction of Bachat Bhavan, the respondents had grudge against the petitioners and because of that there was the proposal of acquisition of the plots of the petitioners. In no way, the dispute in the year 1982 can be considered as a ground for having mala fide intentions on the part of the respondents. 18. So far as the two suits filed by the petitioners, it is worth noting that the State of Maharashtra did not contest the suits. The State was served with the summons but the State did not file appearance. There is nothing on record that any of the other respondents i.e. Municipal Corporation or the Assistant Director of Town Planning were parties to the said suit. When the defendant from the said suit had not even cared to contest the suit, how can it be said that because of the decree passed in the suit, the respondents have grudge against the petitioners and, therefore, they decided to acquire the two plots of the petitioners. 19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however, has pointed out the circumstances that the petitioner, Shri Roplekar, had filed an application for permission to construct the compound wall around his plot and as per the letter dated 18-4-1986, from the Administrator, Aurangabad, Municipal Corporation, the permission was accorded. However, he could not take up the work of construction within the period of one year from the date of permission. On 16-4-1987, he requested for extension of time for construction of the wall. Till July 1987, the petitioner did not receive any reply from the Municipal Corporation. However, by letter dated 8-7-1987, the Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, informed that as the plot was going to be acquired for Bachat Bhavan, permission for construction could not be given. On 16-4-1987, he requested for extension of time for construction of the wall. Till July 1987, the petitioner did not receive any reply from the Municipal Corporation. However, by letter dated 8-7-1987, the Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, informed that as the plot was going to be acquired for Bachat Bhavan, permission for construction could not be given. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that on 8-6-1987, the petitioner had deposited the security amount with respect to the permission for construction and B.P. fees totalling Rs. 9,240/- and the concerned officers of the Municipal Corporation had accepted that amount. 20. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that first granting permission for construction of the compound wall, accepting the amount for the purpose of construction and thereafter suddenly refusing the permission also indicates that there were mala fide intentions on the part of the Municipal Corporation. On the contrary, it appears that when the permission for construction was granted, on 18-4-1986, there was yet no decision for acquiring the two plots for the compound of Bachat Bhavan and, therefore, the permission was granted. However, later on it was decided to acquire the two plots for the compound of Bachat Bhavan and when there was an application for extension of time of the permission, the same was rejected. In ordinary course, the security deposit and fees were accepted by the officers of the Municipal Corporation. 21. There may be some delay in informing the petitioner that the permission to construct compound wall was rejected. But that does not mean that the acquisition is with mala fide intentions. If there could have been any mala fide intentions on the part of the Municipal Corporation, then the very first application for permission to construct compound wall would have been rejected by the Municipal Corporation authorities. Because of the further development, the period was not extended by the Municipal Corporation. In no way, this circumstance can be considered as indicative of mala fide intentions. 22. Furthermore, in this respect, the Apex Court, in the matter between (The State of Punjab and another v. Gurdial Singh and others)1, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 319 has observed in para 9, as follows :- "The question then, is what is mala fides in the jurisprudence of power? 22. Furthermore, in this respect, the Apex Court, in the matter between (The State of Punjab and another v. Gurdial Singh and others)1, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 319 has observed in para 9, as follows :- "The question then, is what is mala fides in the jurisprudence of power? Legal Malice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and oftentimes overlaps motive, passions and satisfactions is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is voted the Court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. In a broad, blurred sense. Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in law when he stated : "I repeat..... that all power is a trust that we are accountable for its exercise that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to affect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malice-laden or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impels the action mala fides or fraud on power vitiates the acquisition or other Official Act." In the light of these observations, the facts pleaded by the petitioners to allege mala fide are to be judged and, as it is pointed above. 23. 23. It will be, thus, seen that the petitioners are unable to prove that there were any reasons for the respondents to have grudge against the petitioners and because of that, with mala fide intentions, there is the proposal of acquisition of the two plot of the petitioners. The petitioners utterly failed to prove that the acquisition is with mala fide intentions. 24. With respect to the contention that there is excessive acquisition, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the plot on which Bachat Bhavan is constructed is a big plot. Even after the construction of the auditorium, there is sufficient open space for the purpose of car parking, canteen, latrines and toilets etc. The two plots of the petitioners are not at all necessary to provide such amenities for the auditorium. The petitioners had asked the authorities to give the copies of the plan of the building of Bachat Bhavan. But the authorities refused to supply those copies and this also indicates that the respondents are trying to hide certain facts from the petitioners. 25. It is further contended that on the plot where Bachat Bhavan is constructed, previously there was vegetable market and some shops. The Municipal Corporation pulled down the vegetable market and shops for the purpose of construction of Bachat Bhavan. So, that area is made available to Bachat Bhavan. So, the area which is around Bachat Bhavan excluding the two plots of the petitioners is sufficient for parking purposes. 26. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, Shri Roplekar, he has pointed out that there are some other spaces which are near about Bachat Bhavan and those can be used by the Municipal Corporation as parking lot and for providing other amenities. In the affidavit in reply, the Municipal Corporation has shown how those different plots mentioned by the petitioner, in his additional affidavit, are not convenient and sufficient for the proper use of Bachat Bhavan. 27. Bachat Bhavan is mainly drama theatre. There is art gallery also on the first floor. Shri Mandlik, learned Counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation, has argued that if any amenities are to be provided, such as, car parking, canteen, latrines and toilets, those must be adjacent to the auditorium. Those cannot be at a distance from the main auditorium. 27. Bachat Bhavan is mainly drama theatre. There is art gallery also on the first floor. Shri Mandlik, learned Counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation, has argued that if any amenities are to be provided, such as, car parking, canteen, latrines and toilets, those must be adjacent to the auditorium. Those cannot be at a distance from the main auditorium. The two plots are adjacent to the auditorium and, therefore, those are the only convenient open spaces which can be used for this purpose. The present parking lot is very small. The cars and other vehicles are required to be parked on road when there is a programme in the main auditorium and, therefore, it was decided to acquire the two plots for providing compound to Bachat Bhavan. 28. On going through the description of the other open plots given by the petitioner in his additional affidavit, it is very clear that those open spaces are not adjacent to the auditorium, they are at a distance. The purpose for which the two plots are being acquired, is definitely such that the open spaces must be adjacent to the auditorium. The acquisition of the two plots, in such circumstances, cannot be considered excessive. It is always necessary to have a big open space around such public utility buildings for the proper use of the building and also for the convenience of the people who visit such building on specific occasions. Parking of the vehicles on the road especially where there is thick population is not at all advisable. So, in the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the acquisition is excessive. 29. Here, it will have to be made clear that the petitioner, Shri Ropelkar, filed Writ Petition No. 1390/1987 only on receiving notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and because of the stay granted by this Court, the further proceedings in Land Acquisition with respect of his plot are stayed. However, the petitioner, Dr. Deshpande, filed Writ Petition No. 4120/1989 after the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and after receipt of notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the petitioner, Dr. Deshpande, filed Writ Petition No. 4120/1989 after the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and after receipt of notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. He has made it clear that in response to the notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, he had filed objections to the acquisition, as contemplated under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and after considering the objections, the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is made, with respect to plot No. 90 belonging to Dr. Deshpande. 30. Once there is the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, that the land is required for public purposes, the petitioners will have to make out very strong case to show that the acquisition is with mala fide intentions or the acquisition is excessive acquisition. The declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is conclusive proof with respect to requirement of land for public purposes. The petitioners have failed to dislodge this presumption either on the ground of mala fide or on the ground of excessive acquisition. 31. Here, it is to be noted that the notice under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act makes it clear that the two plots are to be acquired for the compound of Bachat Bhavan. The notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, copy of which is produced in Writ Petition No. 4120/1989 which was published in Government Gazette dated 22nd December 1988, also makes it clear that the acquisition of the plot was for the purpose of compound of Bachat Bhavan and even now the respondents are contending that the two plots are required for the purpose of compound of Bachat Bhavan. 32. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has tried to argue that the very purpose of the acquisition is changed because Bachat Bhavan was being constructed through the agency of the State Government and thereafter the Corporation has constructed "Shri Sant Eknath Rangmandeer" on that place. Because of this there is change in purpose. So, the acquisition is void. 33. What has happened in this case is only this much, that the agency which was constructing Bachat Bhavan, is changed. Because of this there is change in purpose. So, the acquisition is void. 33. What has happened in this case is only this much, that the agency which was constructing Bachat Bhavan, is changed. Obviously, the State Government, through Collector, and other Departments of the State Government, were constructing the building of Bachat Bhavan which consisted of auditorium, art gallery, etc. Then it was decided that the entire project be handed over to the Municipal Corporation and accordingly the entire project was handed over to the Municipal Corporation. But the funds provided for construction came from the incentive granted to the Municipal Corporation as per the scheme under "Small Savings". Particular portion of the incentive which was to be given to the Municipal Corporation, as per the Rules, was given to the Municipal Corporation and that was used for the construction of "Shri Sant Eknath Rangmandeer". So, "Shri Sant Eknath Rangmandeer" has come up from the cash incentive received in the scheme under the "Small Savings" and, therefore, it continues to be Bachat Bhavan. It is not any different project undertaken by the Municipal Corporation. 34. In such circumstances, if the two plots of the petitioners are being acquired for providing compound to Bachat Bhavan, which is now known as "Shri Sant Eknath Rangmandeer", it cannot be said that the purpose is changed. The purpose continues to be the same that of providing open space around Bachat Bhavan @ Shri Sant Ekanth Rangmandeer. 35. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court, in the matter between (The Industrial Development and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra and others)2, 1988(4) Bom.C.R. 423 . It is observed in para 4 of the judgment: "Before us no serious effort was made on behalf of the respondents to dispute the proposition that the public purpose specified in the declaration under section 6, Land Acquisition Act, must continue to subsist throughout the proceedings and at least up to the date of making of the award under section 11, Land Acquisition Act. In our view, the appellants are right in contending that the public purpose specified in the declaration under section 6, Land Acquisition Act not only must be real and not illusory at the date the said declaration is published but the purpose must continue to subsist until the land proposed to be acquired vests in the State in terms of section 16 or 17, Land Acquisition Act as the case might be. In the event the purpose specified in the declaration under section 6 is altered or it ceases to exist, there would be no further jurisdiction to continue the proceedings for acquiring for such a non-existent purpose." 36. As pointed out above, section 4(1) notification as well as section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act makes it clear that the two plots are to be acquired for providing compound to Bachat Bhavan @ Shri Sant Eknath Rangmandeer and the respondents have taken the same stand. Even till this date, there is no change in the purpose for which the two plots are to be acquired. Now, actually who has constructed Bachat Bhavan is immaterial. Whether the State has constructed Bachat Bhavan or the Municipal Corporation has constructed Bachat Bhavan, the purpose for acquisition of the two plots is providing additional open space for Bachat Bhavan and that is continued. So, it cannot be said that, in this case, the purpose for acquisition is changed prior to passing of award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the acquisition becomes void. 37. The third ground on which the acquisition is challenged is that of changing the town plan without following the procedure under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R. T.P. Act" for the purpose of brevity). It is contended that there was a vegetable market and shops on some of the portion of the plot where now Bachat Bhavan is constructed. The vegetable market and shops were demolished by the Municipal Corporation and this was done without effecting change in reservation for vegetable market by following the procedure under the M.R. T.P. Act. 38. It is contended that there was a vegetable market and shops on some of the portion of the plot where now Bachat Bhavan is constructed. The vegetable market and shops were demolished by the Municipal Corporation and this was done without effecting change in reservation for vegetable market by following the procedure under the M.R. T.P. Act. 38. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, Shri Roplekar, it is contended that the objection raised to the acquisition on the ground of violation of provisions of the M.R. T.P. Act is with respect to demolition of the vegetable market and shops which were there on the plot where now Bachat Bhavan is constructed. Before pulling down the buildings, it was necessary to follow the procedure under M.R. T.P. Act for change of reservation. 39. It may be that there was a vegetable market and also there may be shops on the plot where now Bachat Bhavan is constructed. However, the petitioners have not produced any document on record to show that the particular plot was reserved under the town planning scheme for the purpose of vegetable market and shops. Merely because there were vegetable market and shops on the plot, it cannot be said that the particular plot was reserved for vegetable market and shops. 40. Furthermore, the petitioners cannot challenge the construction of Bachat Bhavan on that plot after the lapse of five years. The documents produced on record by the petitioners indicate that the plan for constructing Bachat Bhavan on that plot was finalised in the year 1982. The petitioners were very well aware about those plans because they raised objections and got amended plans of Bachat Bhavan. However, more than five years thereafter, the petitioners have challenged that there is breach of provisions of section 37 of the M.R. T.P. Act. It clearly appears that just to create some ground to stop the respondents from acquiring the plots of the petitioners, this stand is taken by the petitioners. 41. The construction of Bachat Bhavan on the plot belonging to the Corporation, or even the acquisition of the two plots of the petitioners cannot be challenged on the ground that the provisions of the M.R. T.P. Act were not followed before causing change of user of the land than the one contemplated under the Master plan or Zonal plan. 41. The construction of Bachat Bhavan on the plot belonging to the Corporation, or even the acquisition of the two plots of the petitioners cannot be challenged on the ground that the provisions of the M.R. T.P. Act were not followed before causing change of user of the land than the one contemplated under the Master plan or Zonal plan. The Apex Court has observed in the matter between (Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P. and others)3, 1999(2) Supreme Court Cases 384, in para 22 as follows :- "As pointed out in the above judgments, there is no need that the land proposed to be acquired by the Government for a particular public purpose should be for the same purpose or use mentioned in the Master Plan or Zonal Plan for the said area. Nor will the acquisition be invalid merely because the land proposed to be acquired is for a purpose other than the one permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan applicable to that locality. Acquisition will be valid if it is for a public purpose even if it is not for the type of user permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan in force at the time the acquisition is made. It will be for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act and obtain the sanction of the said authority for suitable modification of the Master Plan so as to permit the use of the land for the public purpose for which the land is acquired. In fact, it may be difficult for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act seeking permission to change of land use even before the land is acquired or before possession is given to the beneficiary. On the principle stated in the case of (Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi)4, 1975(4) S.C.C. 285 , it is clear that acquisition for a public purpose and obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Development Act concerned for change of land use are different from one another and the former is not dependent upon the latter." So, the stand taken in this respect by the petitioners, that the acquisition is illegal because of breach of provisions of section 37 of the M.R. T.P. Act is without any basis. 42. 42. In Writ Petition No. 4120/1989, the petitioner has taken the stand that the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 3rd December, 1987 in the Government Gazette, while the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 22nd December, 1988. So, this notification is published more than one year after the date of last publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the acquisition is void. Relying on the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6, read with Clause ("ii") of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act ought to have been published in Government Gazette before the expiry of the period of one year from date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 43. Shri S.K. Tambe, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, has argued that the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made by the competent authority, Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, with respect to plot, City Survey No. 14488/91, on 14th September, 1988, as mentioned in the Government Gazette dated 22nd December, 1988. So, the declaration was made within the period of one year from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Only thing is that the declaration is published beyond the period of one year from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 44. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has strongly contended that the Clause “ii” of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that the declaration should not be after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. This declaration is regarding satisfaction of the Government that the land is required for public purpose. After this declaration is made, it is required to be notified as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. This declaration is regarding satisfaction of the Government that the land is required for public purpose. After this declaration is made, it is required to be notified as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. This publication in the Official Gazette or in the newspaper is only for the purpose of making it clear that a declaration is made as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of the section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the publication of the notification has the another purpose that is of fixing the time limit of passing final award as per the provisions of sections 11 and 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 45. Section 11-A provides that the Collector shall make award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration. Making of declaration under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is one thing and publication of the said declaration under sub-section (2) of section 6 is another thing. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act does not govern act of declaration to be made under sub-section (1) of section 6. If the declaration is made within one year from the date of publication of notification under sub-section (1) of section 4, then it is valid declaration, even if it is published to comply the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, more than one year after the publication of notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 46. We find much substance in this contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. There are three steps, First is the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which states that the particular land is needed or is likely needed for public purpose and, therefore, there is the proposal of acquisition of the land. Thereafter the objections are called from the interested persons and the objections are considered as per the provisions of section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and then there is the declaration regarding public purpose for acquisition of the land as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter the objections are called from the interested persons and the objections are considered as per the provisions of section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and then there is the declaration regarding public purpose for acquisition of the land as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. All these steps are to be complied with and thereafter publication of the declaration is to be made as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act serves only as evidence of declaration and also has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of provisions of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to find out whether the final award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition is made within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration. 47. It appears that the wording used in sub-section (I) and sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the effect "last of any such notification" is meant to make leeway for the authorities, so that, the maximum time can be made available for the authorities to make a declaration under sub-section (1) of section 6, after the publication of notification under section 4(1); and similarly, maximum time could be available to the authorities to pass the final award under section 11, by remaining within the limits of section 11-A. Because of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6, that last of such notification would be considered for the proceedings thereafter taken in the acquisition of the land. If the legislature intended that sub-section (2) of section 6 should regulate the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 6 with respect to declaration of the public purpose, then, in ordinary course, the wording would have been, "first of such publication of declaration would be relevant". The intention of the legislature appears to be to give maximum time to the authorities to take the appropriate decisions. In both sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 6, the last notification is considered relevant, and from this point of view, the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears correct. 48. The intention of the legislature appears to be to give maximum time to the authorities to take the appropriate decisions. In both sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 6, the last notification is considered relevant, and from this point of view, the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appears correct. 48. In this respect, we would like to rely upon the ruling of the Apex Court, in the matter, (Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P. and others)5, 1976(I) Supreme Court Cases 843. This is a judgment by the Bench of learned four Judges of the Apex Court and, therefore, we are bound by the ratio laid down in this judgment. No doubt, in this judgment, the provisions of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, as those were obtaining in the year under consideration, were interpreted. However, the basic purpose for making the provisions under section 6(1) and 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is the same. Only there is some change in the period and also some change because of the amendments effected in the Land Acquisition Act by 1984 Act. But for the purpose of our matter, the amendments effected in the Land Acquisition Act by the Act of 1984 are not relevant because the notification under section 4(1) is after 1984. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are in paragraph Nos. 25 and 26 which read as follows :--- "25. It is clear from the provisions set out above that the object of the notification under section 6 is to ensure that the Government is duly satisfied, after an enquiry at which parties concerned are heard, the land under consideration is really needed for a public purpose and that the declaration is to operate as conclusive evidence to show that this is so. The conclusiveness of this declaration cannot be questioned anywhere if the procedure dealing with its making has been observed. The notification which takes place under section 6(2), set out above, follows and serves only as evidence of the declaration. That the declaration mentioned in section 6(1), set out above, differs from its notification is shown by the fact that it has to be signed by a secretary or other officer duly authorised. The declaration is in the form of an order. The notification is its publication and proof of its existence. That the declaration mentioned in section 6(1), set out above, differs from its notification is shown by the fact that it has to be signed by a secretary or other officer duly authorised. The declaration is in the form of an order. The notification is its publication and proof of its existence. It has been shown in the case before us, that the deemed notification under section 6 took place about three and a half months after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the ordinance of 1967. But, it is not argued on behalf of the appellant that the declaration under section 6 was similarly delayed. Presumably it was within time. 26. A look at the amendment introduced by the section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, show that it is the declaration which has to take place within two years of the expiry of the commencement of the ordinance which came into force on January 20, 1967. In fact, section 4(2) of the Amendment Act of 1967, set out above, itself makes a distinction between a "declaration" under section 6 and its "notification" under section 4 of the principal Act. It does not say that no notification under section 6 of the principal Act can take place beyond the time fixed. The prohibition is confined to declaration made beyond the specified period. If the case of the appellant could be that no declaration was made within the prescribed time, it was his duty to prove it. He has not discharged that onus." 49. Thus, if the declaration is made within a period of one year from the publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, then merely because that declaration is published after the expiry of the period of one year, from the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquisition will not be void and it cannot be quashed. In the present case, as pointed above, the declaration was made within the period of one year from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. So, the ground taken for quashing the acquisition, in Writ Petition No. 4120/1989 is also not maintainable. 50. In the result, Writ Petition No. 1390/1987 and Writ Petition No. 4120/1989 are dismissed. Rule in both petitions is discharged. So, the ground taken for quashing the acquisition, in Writ Petition No. 4120/1989 is also not maintainable. 50. In the result, Writ Petition No. 1390/1987 and Writ Petition No. 4120/1989 are dismissed. Rule in both petitions is discharged. The orders of interim relief, dated 21-9-1987, in Writ Petition No. 1390/1987, and dated 21-2-1990, in Writ Petition No. 4120/1989, stand vacated. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. ----