Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. The petitioners in W.P.No.5535 of 1996 aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petition, had filed this writ appeal. .2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: - The first appellant is the son of the second appellant. The first appellant purchased land admeasuring 50 cents in S.No.141/1A, patta No.7, situated at Manjambakkam Village, .Puzhal Panchayat Union vide registered sale deed dated 28. 1988. The second appellant is the mother of the first appellant and she purchased 30 cents of land in Punja S.No.138/3 admeasuring to an extent of 7½ cents and the land admeasuring to an extent of 22½ cents situate in S.No.138/4 in the same village by means of a registered sale deed dated 110. 1988. According to the appellants, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands purchased by them and pattas had also been granted in their favour. 3. The second Respondent had issued a notification on 4. 1994 which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act 1/1894). As per the said notification, the lands belonging to various persons including the appellants herein situate in No.32 Manjambakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District are needed for a public purpose viz., " to wit, for development of residential and commercial neighbourhoods on both sides of Inner Ring road to ensure and regulate orderly development by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority under the project known as Land Assembly and Development project along Inner Ring Road. 4. The said notification was issued by the first Respondent. The appellants on becoming aware of the said notification, filed their objections and Section 5A enquiry was held on 310. 1994. The objections raised were that a Small Scale Industrial Unit is situated on the said land under the name and style of M/s. Maruthi Saw Mill which is engaging in sawing of wood and allied business. The said partnership firm comprised of three partners and a loan facility was also availed from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC). The said industry also provides employment to many employees engaged in the Timber Trading. The said partnership firm comprised of three partners and a loan facility was also availed from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC). The said industry also provides employment to many employees engaged in the Timber Trading. It is further stated by the appellants in their objections that pattas had already been issued in respect of the above lands and in view of their objections, they prayed for dropping of the land acquisition proceedings. .5. The first Appellant had appeared before the first Respondent on 111. 1994 and he has submitted his objections. On 23. 1995, a communication was received from the office of the first Respondent stating that they have decided to proceed further in pursuant to the above said notification for which, the first Appellant has submitted a detailed representation on 25. 1995 stating among other things that a superstructure has been put up by availing loan and the industry being run for his sole source of .livelihood. The first Appellant also submitted one more representation on 16. 1995 to the second Respondent praying for exemption from the Land Acquisition Proceedings. 6. The grievance of the appellants is that without considering the objections raised by them, the Respondents proceed further and issued a notification under Section 6(1) of the above said Act which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26. 1995. The appellants herein challenging the vires of the Section 4(1) Notification as well as Section 6 Declaration issued under Land Acquisition Act, had filed W.P.No.5535 of 1996 to quash the said notifications. 7. The writ petition was admitted on 7. 1996 and this Court has passed an interim order staying the dispossession if possession not already taken by the Respondents. 8. The writ petition was taken up for final disposal and this Court taking into consideration the averments made in the writ petition and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned Government Advocate, has held that so long as the acquisition is for public purpose, then, the acquisition has to be upheld unless it is vitiated by any infirmity or irregularities in following the procedure prescribed under the statute. It has been further held that the lands are being acquired for the development of Inner Ring Road and therefore, it cannot be said that the acquisition is not for public purpose. It has been further held that the lands are being acquired for the development of Inner Ring Road and therefore, it cannot be said that the acquisition is not for public purpose. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on 11. 2002 on the above said grounds. 9. The writ petitioners who are the appellants herein did not prefer any writ appeal on time but filed it with the delay of 1167 days and the delay was condoned after hearing the objections of the Respondents and thereafter, the writ appeal was taken on file and an interim order was passed on 24. 2006 directing the Respondents not to dispossess the appellants from the land in question including the saw Mill which is being run in the said land. On 38. 2007 the above said interim order was made absolute. .10. In the grounds of appeal, the appellants contended that a similar notification issued earlier for similar or identical purpose covering a large extent of lands has been quashed by this Court and writ appeal No.1130 and 1233 to 1244 of 1999 and therefore the impugned notification is liable to be quashed. It is further contended by the appellants that the learned Judge who disposed of the writ petition, fell in error in not considering the judgment of this Court reported in 2001 (2) CTC page 257 (DB) -Shanmugadurai vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Housing & Urban Development, Chennai and two others. It is also urged by the appellants that in view of the above cited judgment, the proceedings in respect of Phase-I and Phase-II came to be dropped and consequently, supplemental Phase-III - category under which the appellants lands fall, cannot also be implemented. 11. Heard the submissions of Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.L.G.Sahadevan, for the appellants and Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader (Writs) for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third Respondent-CMDA. 12. 11. Heard the submissions of Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.L.G.Sahadevan, for the appellants and Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader (Writs) for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.D.Veerasekaran, and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third Respondent-CMDA. 12. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that in 2001(2) CTC page 257(DB) -Shanmugadurai vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Housing & Urban Development, Chennai and two others, the notification for an extent of 33.16 Acres of wet lands in S.No.702/1 etc., in Madhavaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District was quashed on the ground that the public purpose mentioned in Section 4(1) Notification i.e. "To wit for land assembly (?) and development project along Inner Ring Road by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority." was very vague, and as such, it will not be possible for the appellants to put-forth their objections specifically. 13. Since the notification dated 4. 1994 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the appellants and others lands discloses that the purpose for acquisition is " for development of residential and commercial neighbourhoods on both sides of Inner Ring Road to ensure and regulate orderly development of Madras Metropolitan Development Authority under the project known as Land Assembly Development Project along Inner Ring Road" is also very vague, the impugned notification under Section 4(1) as well as consequential Section 6 Declaration are liable to be quashed. .14. .14. The above said submission made on behalf of the appellants in the considered opinion of the Court lacks merit for the reason that in the judgment reported in 2001(2) CTC page 257 (DB) (cited supra) the purpose for acquisition was "for land assembly and development project along Inner Ring Road by MMDA" and whereas Section 4(1) notification pertaining to the case on hand clearly indicates that the lands in question are sought to be acquired "for development of residential and commercial neighbourhoods on both sides of the Inner Ring Road........." In the above cited decision, the Respondents in their declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, had mentioned that the lands are needed for commercial and residential neighbourhood schemes under the project known as "land assembly and development project" and this Court in the above cited decision has held that by way of notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, the Government may not be justified in filling up the lacuna regarding the vagueness in notification and therefore, it has been held that based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and it cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 15. Section 4(1) notification dated 4. 1994 which is also subject matter of challenge in this writ petition would reveal that the purpose of the acquisition has been clearly stated and the appellants herein had also submitted their objections and in the said objections, the prejudice caused on account of the vagueness in notification has not been raised. 16. We are of the considered opinion that there is no vagueness in the notification and the appellants had clearly understood the nature and scope of the acquisition and submitted their objections under Section 5A of the Act and also participated in the enquiry. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that in the writ petition, this ground has not been raised and for the first time in this writ appeal, it is sought to be raised. Therefore, we find no merits in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants regarding the vagueness in notification. 117. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that in the writ petition, this ground has not been raised and for the first time in this writ appeal, it is sought to be raised. Therefore, we find no merits in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants regarding the vagueness in notification. 117. It is further contended on behalf of the appellants that the publication of notification with regard to the said acquisition has been effected in News Dailies which are not having wide circulation/no circulation in the locality and therefore, the appellants herein were denied of fair opportunity to put forth their objections with regard to the acquisition of their lands. 118. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. 2000 (1) CTC 117 - Ramaiah Moopanar vs. State of Tamil Nadu; 2. 2001 (4) CTC page 108 - V.Krishnan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (DB) 3. (2003) 1 MLJ page 378- Mrs.Revathy Mohan alias Dhanalakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others. 4. (2006) 3 MLJ 357 -A.Thangapalam vs. Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai and another. 5. (2006) 4 MLJ 1405 -Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai vs. Pushpaveni and others. 6. 2007 (1) MLJ page 133 - M.Velayutham and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu. 7.(2008) 2 MLJ page 582 - K.Narayanareddy vs. State of Tamil Nadu. 19. In the above cited decisions it has been held that as per Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, when the Government proposed to acquire any land for public purpose, a notification therefor has to be published in the Official Gazette and two newspapers, one of which shall be in Regional Language having circulation in the local area. In the absence of the same, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be held to be valid and therefore, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed and they were quashed. .20. In the unreported judgment dated 23. In the absence of the same, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be held to be valid and therefore, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed and they were quashed. .20. In the unreported judgment dated 23. 2006 in W.A.Nos.261, 262, 319 and 320 of 2006-The State of Tamil Nadu and two others vs. K.Ponnammal and others, similar point was urged stating that Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 Declaration had been published in Makkal Kural, Dhinakaran and Kumari Murasu and the Government has not produced any material to show that the newspapers in question were having reasonable wide circulation in the local area. In the said decision, it has .been held that the said objection has not been raised by the writ petitioners at any point of time either during the acquisition proceedings or at the time of filing writ petition challenging the legality of the said proceedings. It has been further held in the said decision that the land owners having participated in the enquiry conducted under Section 5A of the Act also did not raise their objections with regard to the above said publication. 21. In the judgment reported in 2008 (2) MLJ page 582 (Single Bench) -K.Narayanareddy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, it has been held that when no objection was raised by the writ petitioner at any point of time before filing the writ petition and that he had also participated in 5A Enquiry, and he has not chosen to raise objection with regard to the publication, it is not open to him to urge that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated on the ground that Section 4(1) notification was not published in a widely circulated newspaper of the locality. In respect of the case on hand, no grounds have been raised with regard to the local publication either in the grounds of writ petition, or in the grounds of writ appeal and even in the objections filed before the authority and at the time of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, the said objection has not been raised. 22. It is to be pointed out at this juncture, the present writ appeal was filed with a delay of 1167 days in filing the writ appeal and the same was condoned and thereafter it was taken on file for adjudication. 22. It is to be pointed out at this juncture, the present writ appeal was filed with a delay of 1167 days in filing the writ appeal and the same was condoned and thereafter it was taken on file for adjudication. The appellants having kept quiet for quite long time and therefore at this distant point of time, it is not open to them to urge the said grounds. The appellants have not pointed out any prejudice or lack of opportunity with regard to the local publication in newspapers which are not having wide circulation in the locality. But most importantly, the appellants have participated in the 5A Enquiry notwithstanding the alleged limited circulation of the newspaper and that they had not raised any objection on that ground. Therefore, the said ground urged on behalf of the appellants lacks merit and substance and hence rejected. .23. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would urge that similar notification which was the subject matter of the challenge in Writ Appeal Nos.1130 and 1233 to 1244 of 1999 has been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in 2001 (2) CTC page 257 (cited supra) and the challenge made to the said order by way of SLP having been dismissed, the present acquisition proceedings are also liable to be .quashed. As already held above, in the above cited decision, the notification read that "To wit for Land Assembly and Development Project along Inner Ring Road by Madras Metropolitan Development Authority". A perusal of the 4(1) Notification which is the subject matter of challenge in this proceedings would disclose that the lands in question are sought to be acquired " for development of residential and commercial neighbourhood on both side of the Inner Ring Road" .... Therefore, it cannot be said that the said notification is vague and the appellants having understood the purpose of the acquisition had submitted their objections and also participated in the 5A Enquiry. The authorities after considering their objections, decided to proceed with the acquisition overruling their objections. The appellants/writ petitioners have not urged the said ground either in the writ petition or in this writ appeal. Therefore, on facts, the above cited judgment is not applicable to the case on hand and therefore, we find that the said ground urged on behalf of the appellants lacks merit. 24. The appellants/writ petitioners have not urged the said ground either in the writ petition or in this writ appeal. Therefore, on facts, the above cited judgment is not applicable to the case on hand and therefore, we find that the said ground urged on behalf of the appellants lacks merit. 24. On behalf of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, an affidavit was filed by the Chief Executive Officer with the plan stating that under Phase-I, the acquisition proposal was restricted to 12.23 Hectares of land on the West of Ring Road, 10.52 Hectares of land in Madhavaram Village under Phase-II and 38.31 Hectares of land in, Madharavaram and Manjambakkam Villages under Phase-III. The Honble Supreme Court of India has quashed Section 4(1) notification in respect of lands in Phase-I. It is further stated in the said affidavit that out of 38.31 Hectares of land proposed for acquisition, Awards have been passed for only in respect of 5.81 Hectares, (14.35 acres) in Manjambakkam Village under Phase-III and the appellants lands coming under Phase-III and Award No.3 of 1997 dated 26. 1997 has been passed and lands were taken possession on 26. 1997. 25. It is further stated in the said affidavit that CMDA has decided to decongest the Central Business District and major arterial Roads of Chennai City. Hence, it proposed to develop Truck Parking terminal along the Fringe of the City and on the major arterial roads. Therefore, in the lands under the possession of CMDA at Manjambakkam Village in which the appellants lands also situated, the CMDA has proposed to develop Truck Parking Terminal under the Public Private partnership. The CMDA has spent 117.20 lakhs towards the land acquisition and it had also in the process of fencing the 2.93 acres of lands on the Eastern side of the Inner Ring Road. 26. The CMDA has pointed out in the said affidavit that the lands belonged to the appellants admeasuring to an extent of 80 cents is within the compound wall constructed by CMDA having total extent of 12 acres of land and they are in possession of the same. 27. Therefore, it has been urged on behalf of the CMDA that out of the larger extent if the acquisition notification pertaining to the appellants is quashed, the public purpose of establishing the Truck Parking Terminal to ease the congestion in Chennai City would be jeopardised. 28. 27. Therefore, it has been urged on behalf of the CMDA that out of the larger extent if the acquisition notification pertaining to the appellants is quashed, the public purpose of establishing the Truck Parking Terminal to ease the congestion in Chennai City would be jeopardised. 28. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CMDA, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that G.O.Ms.No.248, Housing and Urban Development, (UD-III) dated 3. 1994, issued for the similar purpose has been quashed by this Court and the judgment reported in 2003 (1) MLJ page 378 - Mrs.Revathy Mohan alias Dhanalakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, on the ground that Rules 4(b) and © of Land Acquisition Rules have not been followed and the publication has been effected in Tamil Dailies which were not having wider circulation in the locality. While quashing the notification, this Court in the said decision, had granted liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh in terms of the Land Acquisition Rules. 29. It is stated by the Chief Executive Officer of CMDA in the above said affidavit that in respect of land acquisition which was subject matter of the challenge in the above cited decision, CMDA is taking steps through Tahsildar to issue a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. 30. This Court after taking into consideration the affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA and the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for CMDA and the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, is of the considered opinion that the lands in question along with other acquired lands in Phase-III are going to be utilised for the public purpose to develop Truck Parking Terminal which would ultimately ease the traffic congestion in Chennai City. The said purpose in any event cannot be said as "non-public purpose". Even though similar notification has been quashed by this Court in the judgment reported in 2003(1) MLJ 378 (cited supra), this Court has granted liberty to the Respondents to issue 4(1) notification afresh in terms of Act and Rules and it is averred by the Chief Executive Officer, CMDA in his affidavit that the steps are being taken to issue a fresh Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, the benefit of the above cited decision cannot be extended to the appellants. Therefore, the benefit of the above cited decision cannot be extended to the appellants. Moreover, the lands admeasuring to an extent of 80 cents belonged to the appellants lie within the compound wall constructed by the CMDA covering the total extent of 12 acres of land. In the event of quashment of the impugned notification, the said extent is liable to be de-notified which would cause inconvenience/hinder the implementation of the scheme for public purpose and therefore on the ground also, it cannot be quashed. 31. This Court on a careful consideration and appreciation of entire materials available on record, is of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or infirmity in the order passed in the writ petition. This Court also finds that the points urged by the appellants for the first time in this writ appeal, lack merits and no grounds made out for interference. 32. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 11. 2002 made in W.P.No.5535 of 1996. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.A.M.P.No.1034 of 2006 is closed.