JUDGMENT 1. - The notification dated 18.6.2007, issued by the Government of Rajasthan, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894") is challenged by the petitioners on the grounds: (1) that the acquisition of the land for expansion and development of the temple project beyond the main temple is not a public purpose specially in the circumstances that the entire expenses of the development and expansion is to be borne by "Sanwaliaji" Temple Board, Mandaphia; (2) that the temple is not in need of any more land as 32 big has of land earlier acquired is already lying vacant; and (3) that the State Government did not apply its own mind while determining need of land as it simply acted upon a resolution undertaken by "Sanwaliaji" Temple Board. 2. To substantiate the first contention, it is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the temple of "Sanwaliaji" situated in village Mandaphia District Chittorgarh is already having sufficient land to perform all religious activities and as such whatever further land sought to be acquired is for the purposes those are not connected with the temple and, therefore, there is nothing that can be treated as public purpose demanding land acquisition. 3. I do not find any substance in the contention so raised as Shri "Sanwaliaji" 'temple Board is a creation of a statute with various objects and those include religious as well as charitable activities. The Temple of "Sanwaliaji" is a well known religious centre in southern part of Rajasthan and also in Malwa region of Madhya Pradesh. Lacs of people visit the temple aforesaid and to provide comfort to them the development of the pilgrim is necessary. Thus, it cannot be said that acquisition of land beyond the performance of religious rituals of temple is not a public purpose. 4. I also do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioners that as the entire expenses of development and expansion is borne by "Sanwaliaji" Temple Board, therefore, the acquisition is for private purpose and not for public purpose. As stated above, "Sanwaliaji" Temple Board is a creation of a statute and, thus, it is not a private body. As stated above, "Sanwaliaji" Temple Board is a creation of a statute and, thus, it is not a private body. The reliance placed by counsel for the petitioners upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Srinivasa Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Madam Gurumurthy Sastry and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 675 , is absolutely misplaced. In the case aforesaid I Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing. with a matter relating to construction of houses by a private Cooperative Housing Building Society for its members. The "Sanwaliaji" Temple is not private property of any person and whatever development or expansion sought to be made by the Board is to be made by the Board is only for the general and public use. The capital available with the Board is also not private property but of a body i.e. created by an enactment of State legislature. 5. The second contention raised by counsel for the petitioners is also meritless as the acquisition cannot be held bad for the reason that 32 bighas of land earlier acquired is still lying vacant. The project of expansion and development of a place is not a matter of completion in one stroke. The projects and expansion programmes are always subject to variations and availability of some part of land earlier acquired does not make the subsequent acquisition proceedings bad in eye of law. 6. I also do not find any substance in the third contention raised by counsel for the petitioners that before issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 no objective application of mind was made by the Government of Rajasthan. The Government of Rajasthan certainly acted upon the proposals given by the respondent No.3 but it does not mean that the need for land acquisition was not examined or ascertained by the Government. The notification impugned at its inception mentions that the Government issued the same only after getting specified about need of the land. No material is available on record on basis of that even a remote presumption can be drawn about non-application of mind by Government of Rajasthan. Quite half-heartedly, it is stated by counsel for the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings are not bonafide for the reason that those were initiated only to satisfy need of certain members of the Board. No material is available on record on basis of that even a remote presumption can be drawn about non-application of mind by Government of Rajasthan. Quite half-heartedly, it is stated by counsel for the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings are not bonafide for the reason that those were initiated only to satisfy need of certain members of the Board. From the documents available on record, I found that the petitioners have already filed objections as required under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 and the contention with regard to discrimination in initiating land acquisition by the proceedings is taken petitioner therein, therefore, the factual aspect relating to that can be raised and agitated by the petitioners before the Collector as provided under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that this Court only on 7.8.2007 issued notices in a petition of similar nature having facts quite akin to present writ petition and also passed an interim order restraining the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question in aforesaid writ petition. 8. I have examined the record of the writ petition i.e. SBCWP No. 4677 of 2007, Masjid Pukhta Deh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. . It is true that the writ petition aforesaid relates to same land acquisition proceedings but in the case aforesaid the Court in quite unambiguous terms noted that the respondents may proceed with land acquisition proceedings but looking to the fact that an alive Masjid is said to be situated on the land concern, therefore, possession of the land on which Masjid is situated be not taken. The order aforesaid was passed looking to communal sensitivity of the matter due to having an alive Masjid on the land sought to be acquired. 9. For the reasons stated above, the petition for writ is having no merit, therefore, the same is dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******