ORDER M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.—None appears to press this petition. 2. Notification under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 2.2.1998 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.3.1999. Possession of the land in dispute was taken on 4.8.1999. Before that 80% of the estimated compensation was deposited under Section 17 (3A) of the Act. The acquisition is for the purposes of housing colony. It has been held in Khacheru Singh v. Development Authority, Moradabad and others, 1989 AWC 1376 and State of U. P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and others, AIR 1986 SC 2025 , etc. that where the land is being acquired for housing, it is a public purpose and there is urgency. 3. In Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal and others, 2003 (1) AWC 73 (SC) : 2003 (1) SCCD 22 : (2002) 7 SCC 712 , it has been held that merely because of some delay, the Notification cannot be set aside. In Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1997 SC 1236 . The Supreme Court has held that the Court should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in the petitions challenging the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act. In H. M. Kelogirao and others v. Government of A.P. and others, (1997) 7 SCC 722 , it was held that where the land was acquired after Notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 and the land stood vested in State free from all encumbrances, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 4. For the reasons given above, this petition is dismissed and the interim order, if any, of this Court is hereby vacated.