Judgment These two writ petitions are filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ’the Act’) for acquiring the lands of the petitioners situated in Moolapet and Ponnada Villages of U. Kothapalli Mandal, and K. Perumallapuram Village of Thondangi Mandal in East Godavari District for Special Economic Zone (for Refinery and other Industries and later stage for future requirement) are arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners in W.P.No.19941 of 2008 claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of the different extents of land situated in Sy.No.45/1 of Moolapet Village and Sy.No.367 of Ponnada Village of U. Kothapalli Mandal, E.G. District. By notifications dated 29.12.2005 and 1.1.2006 published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 their lands were sought to be acquired for a public purpose to wit., for Special Economic Zone (for Refinery and other Industries and later stage for future requirement). The lands of the petitioners in W.P.No.28012 of 2008 situated in R.S.Nos.619, 621, 622, 623, 705/4, 705/5, 706/1, 708/1, 707/1 and 709/1 of K. Perumallapuram Village, Thondangi Mandal, are also sought to be acquired for the same purpose under two notifications dated 5.1.2006. Pursuant to the notification dated 1.1.2006 relating to the lands in Ponnada Village and the notifications dated 5.1.2006 relating to the lands in K. Perumallapuram Village, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and the objections raised by the petitioners were rejected. So far as the notification dated 29.12.2005 relating to the lands in Moolapet Village though the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act was invoked and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, subsequently by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in different writ petitions directing to conduct enquiry, notices under Section 5-A were issued and the objections raised by the petitioners 1 and 2 in W.P.No.19941 of 2008 were rejected. Thereafter the declarations under Section 6 of the Act were made on 28.10.2006 and 27.12.2006, the award enquiry was held and the award was also passed on 8.2.2008 determining the compensation to which the claimants were entitled to. Thereafter the declarations under Section 6 of the Act were made on 28.10.2006 and 27.12.2006, the award enquiry was held and the award was also passed on 8.2.2008 determining the compensation to which the claimants were entitled to. The main contention in the writ petitions is that the formation of Special Economic Zone as contemplated under Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (for short, ‘SEZ Act’) is not a public purpose so as to enable the State to acquire the private property in exercise of the power of eminent domain. It is contended that as per the provisions of the SEZ Act, the Government can recognize or notify a particular area as a Special Economic Zone to pave way for the entrepreneur to purchase a land for commercial or industrial activity, but it does not provide for any acquisition of land by the State for that purpose. Even assuming that the formation of Special Economic Zone amounts to public purpose, it is contended that under the impugned notifications the land was sought to be acquired for transferring the same to various companies through a private limited company called Kakinada Special Economic Zone Private Company Limited. Thus, according to the petitioners, the acquisition under the impugned notifications is for a company and therefore, the procedure laid down in Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is required to be followed. Since the impugned acquisition was not in accordance with Part-VII of the Act, it is contended in the writ petitions that the entire proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be set aside on that ground alone. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), it is explained that the lands of the petitioners are acquired for public purpose namely for establishment of industries through Kakinada Special Economic Zone, a developer under the SEZ Act, 2005 but not for a private company. It is also explained that the lands were sought to be acquired in furtherance of a scheme approved by the Central Government for (a) generation of additional economic activity; (b) promotion of exports of goods and services; (c) promotion of investment from domestic and foreign sources; (d) creation of employment opportunities; (e) development of infrastructure facilities and maintenance of sovereignty and integrity of India. In the light of the above objects, the impugned acquisition for the purpose of setting up of Special Economic Zone is well within the power of the Sovereign State and the acquisition is not for the benefit of a private company. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Kakinada SEZ, it is stated that in pursuance of the policy decision of the Government of India, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.151, (Industries & Commerce Department) dated 9.4.2002 approving the policy for SEZ in the State and enunciating a policy by name A.P. SEZ Policy in its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The formation of SEZ and the connected regulatory mechanism have been detailed in the said policy. The Kakinada SEZ is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) 100% subsidiary company of M/s. Kakinada Seaports Limited which had applied to the State Government proposing to establish a port based multi product SEZ at Kakinada vide letter dated 28.2.2002. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.186, dated 23.4.2002 approving the proposal and requesting the Government of India for its approval. The Government of India by letter dated 27.11.2002 granted approval “in principle” for setting up the port based SEZ at Kakinada. Thereafter, the State Government had initiated proceedings for acquisition of a contiguous land of about 10,000 acres at Kakinada for the SEZ which is situated at 30 kms. away from Kakinada Deep Water port. During the period from 2005 to 2007 the State Government had issued various notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act in respect of 7,800 acres and the balance was procured by purchasing from the land owners. Thus it is contended that the impugned notification was for the public purpose of SEZ and not for the Kakinada SEZ Private Limited. Having regard to the rival contentions noticed above, the question that requires consideration is whether the impugned acquisition is for a public purpose or it is for a company. As could be seen from the language of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the State in exercise of the power of eminent domain may acquire the land if such land is needed ‘for any public purpose’ or ‘for a company’. The expression “public purpose” has been defined under Section 3 (f) and the expression “company” has been defined under Section 3 (e) of the Act as under : “3 (f). The expression “public purpose” has been defined under Section 3 (f) and the expression “company” has been defined under Section 3 (e) of the Act as under : “3 (f). the expression "public purpose" includes- (i) the provision of village-sites, or the extension, planned development or improvement of existing village-sites; (ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning; (iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned; (iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or land-less or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State or a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to cooperative societies for the time being in force in any State; (vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority; (viii) the provision of any premises or building, for locating a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for Companies (emphasis supplied). 3(e). 3(e). the expression "Company" means- (i) a company has defined in S.3 of the Companies Act, 1956, other than a Government company referred to in clause (cc)-, (ii) a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, other than a society referred to in clause (cc); (iii) a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State, other than a co-operative society referred to in clause (cc).” It has been held by the Courts in a catena of decisions that the expression “public purpose” is of very wide amplitude and is incapable of precise and comprehensive definition. As held in the STATE OF BIHAR v. KAMESHWAR SINGH ( AIR 1952 SC 252 ) the public purpose can only be defined by a process of judicial inclusion and exclusion and the point to be determined in each case is whether the acquisition is in the general interest of the community as distinguished from the private interest of an individual. In SOMAWANTI v. STATE OF PUNJAB ( AIR 1963 SC 151 ) it was observed that public purpose is bound to vary with the times and the prevailing conditions in a given locality and therefore it would not be a practical proposition even to attempt a comprehensive definition of it. After reviewing all the relevant decisions in a recent decision in DAULAT SINGH SURANA v. FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (2007) 1 SCC 641 ) while observing that the concept is not static but changes with the passage of time needs and requirements of the community, the Supreme Court held as under : “Pubic purpose is bound to vary with times and prevailing conditions in the community or locality and, therefore, the legislature has left it to the State (Government) to decide what is public purpose and also to declare the need of a given land for the purpose. The legislature has left the discretion to the Government regarding public purpose. The legislature has left the discretion to the Government regarding public purpose. The Government has the sole and absolute discretion in the matter.” From the ratio laid down in the above decisions, it is clear that the acquisition which is aimed to promote the welfare of the community as distinct from the benefit conferred upon an individual can be held to be for a public purpose. As noticed above, the power of eminent domain can also be exercised for acquisition for companies. Part-VII of the Act specifically deals with the acquisition of land for companies. Section 39 in Part-VII of the Act provides that the provisions of Sections 6 to 16 and Sections 18 to 37 shall not be put in force for acquisition of land for any company unless with the previous consent of the appropriate Government after being satisfied that the acquisition is needed for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of Section 40 and on execution of an agreement between the company and the appropriate Government with regard to the matters specified in Section 41. For proper appreciation of the scheme of Part-VII, it is necessary to refer to Sections 39 to 41 which read as under : “39. Previous consent of appropriate Government and execution of agreement necessary:- The provisions of sections 6 to 16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 to 37 (both inclusive)] shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any company, unless with the previous consent of the appropriate Government; nor unless the Company shall have executed the agreement hereinafter mentioned. 40. Previous enquiry:- (1) Such consent shall not be given unless the appropriate Government be satisfied, either on the report of the Collector under section 5A, subsection (2), or by an enquiry held as hereinafter provided,- (a) that the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for the erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the Company or for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith, or (aa) that such acquisition is needed for the construction of some building or work for a Company which is engaged or is taking steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a public purpose, or (b) that such acquisition is needed for the construction of some work, and that such work is likely to prove useful to the public. (2) Such enquiry shall be held by such officer and at such time and place as the appropriate Government shall appoint. (3) Such officer may summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel the production of documents by the same means and, as far as possible, in the same manner as is provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the case of a Civil Court. 41. Agreement with appropriate Government:- If the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, of the Collector under section 5A, sub-section (2), or on the report of the officer making an inquiry under section 40 that the proposed acquisition is for any of the purposes referred to in clause (a) or clause (aa) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 40, it shall require the Company to enter into an agreement with the appropriate Government, providing to the satisfaction of the appropriate Government for the following matters, namely :- (1) the payment to the appropriate Government of the cost of the acquisition; (2) the transfer, on such payment, of the land to the Company; (3) the terms on which the land shall be held by the Company; (4) where the acquisition is for the purpose of erecting dwelling houses or the provision of amenities connected therewith, the time within which, the conditions on which and the manner in which the dwelling houses or amenities shall be erected or provided; (4A) where the acquisition is for the construction of any building or work for a Company which is engaged or is taking steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a public purpose, the time within which, and the conditions on which; the building or work shall be constructed or executed; and (5) where the acquisition is for the construction of any other work, the time within which and the conditions on which the work shall be executed and maintained and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work.” There can be no dispute that the above noticed procedure provided in Part-VII is mandatory if the land sought to be acquired is for a company. Coming to the case on hand, it is pleaded in the writ petitions that a Private Limited Company by name Kakinada Special Economic Zone Private Limited had opened its office at Kakinada and its employees had pressurized and coerced many of the farmers in the locality to sell their lands to the said Company. It is alleged that in respect of those lands which the farmers were not willing to sell, the impugned proceedings were initiated for compulsory acquisition invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further alleged that under the impugned notifications the land is sought to be acquired for transferring the same to various companies through Kakinada Special Economic Zone Private Limited. Thus it is contended that the land sought to be acquired by the Government is for a private company and therefore the procedure laid down in Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act is required to be followed. While denying the said allegations, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the acquisition of the land under the impugned notifications is not for the company attracting Part-VII of the Act but it is for a public purpose of formation of Kakinada SEZ under the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005 for the development of foreign exchange through promotion of import-export transactions. The SEZ Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for the establishment, development and management of the Special Economic Zones for promotion of exports and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 of SEZ Act, 2005 provides that a Special Economic Zone may be established either jointly or severally by the Central Government, State Government or any person for manufacture of goods or rendering services or for both or as a Free Trade and Warehousing Zone. As could be seen from the procedure prescribed under Section 3, any person who intends to set up a Special Economic Zone, may after identifying the area make a proposal to the State Government concerned or directly to the Board of Approval constituted under Section 8 (1) of the SEZ Act, 2005 for the purpose of setting up the Special Economic Zone. After receiving the approval from the Board, the concurrence of the State Government as well as the Central Government shall be obtained. After receiving the approval from the Board, the concurrence of the State Government as well as the Central Government shall be obtained. Every person whose proposal has been approved by the Board and who has been granted Letter of Approval by the Central Government under Section 3 (10) shall be the Developer within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the SEZ Act, 2005 and any person who or a State Government which intends to provide any infrastructure facilities in the identified area after entering into an agreement with the Developer make a proposal for the same to the Board for its approval. As per Section 4 of SEZ Act, 2005, the Developer shall, after the grant of Letter of Approval by the Central Government, submit the exact particulars of the identified area to the Central Government and thereupon the Government has to notify the identified area as a Special Economic Zone. Section 53 of the SEZ Act, 2005 provides that a Special Economic Zone shall on and from the appointed day be deemed to be a territory outside the customs territory of India for the purposes of undertaking the authorized operations. The authorized operations have been enumerated under Section 4 (2) and Section 15 (9) which include the operations authorized in the Letter of Approval. The relevant provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005 may be extracted hereunder: S.2(d) "Authority" means a Special Economic Zone Authority constituted under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 31; S.2(g) "Developer" means a person who, or a State Government which, has been granted by the Central Government a letter of approval under sub-sec. (10) of Sec. 3 and includes an Authority and a Co-Developer; S. 2(za) "Special Economic Zone" means each Special Economic Zone notified under the proviso to sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 3 and sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 4 (including Free Trade and Warehousing Zone) and includes an existing Special Economic Zone; S. 3. Procedure for making proposal to establish Special Economic Zone:- (1) A Special Economic Zone may be established under this Act, either jointly or severally by the Central Government, State Government, or any person for manufacture of goods or rendering services or for both or as a Free Trade and Warehousing Zone. Procedure for making proposal to establish Special Economic Zone:- (1) A Special Economic Zone may be established under this Act, either jointly or severally by the Central Government, State Government, or any person for manufacture of goods or rendering services or for both or as a Free Trade and Warehousing Zone. (2) Any person, who intends to set up a Special Economic Zone, may, after identifying the area, making a proposal to the State Government concerned for the purpose of setting up the Special Economic Zone. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (2), any person, who intends to set up a Special Economic Zone, may, after identifying the area, at his option, make a proposal directly to the Board for the purpose of setting up the Special Economic Zone; Provided that where such a proposal has been received directly from a person under sub-section, the Board may grant approval and after receipt of such approval, the person concerned shall obtain the concurrence of the State Government within the period, as may be prescribed. (4) In case a State Government intends to set up a Special Economic Zone, it may after identifying the area, forward the proposal directly to the Board for the purpose of setting up the Special Economic Zone; (a) after consulting the State Government concerned; (b) without referring the proposal for setting up the Special Economic Zone to the Board; and (c) after identifying the area; suo motu set up and notify the Special Economic Zone. (5) Every proposal under sub-sections (2) to (4) shall be made in such form and manner containing such particulars as may be prescribed. (6) The State Government may, on receipt of the proposal made under sub-sec. (2), forward the same together with its recommendations to the Board within such period as may be prescribed; (7) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-sec. (8), the Board may, after receipt of the proposal under sub-sections (2) to (4), approve the proposal subject to such terms and conditions as it may deem fit to impose, or modify or reject the proposal. (8), the Board may, after receipt of the proposal under sub-sections (2) to (4), approve the proposal subject to such terms and conditions as it may deem fit to impose, or modify or reject the proposal. (8) The Central Government, may prescribe the following requirements for establishment of a Special Economic Zone, namely:-- (a) the minimum area of land and other terms and conditions subject to which the Board shall approve, modify or reject any proposal received by it under sub-sections (2) to (4); and (b) the terms and conditions, subject to which the Developer shall undertake the authorised operations and his obligations and entitlements: Provided that different minimum area of land and other terms and conditions referred to in clause (a) may be prescribed by the Central Government for a class or classes of Special Economic Zones. (9) If the Board, (a) approves without any modification the proposal received under sub-sections (2) to (4), it shall communicate the same to the Central Government; (b) approves with modifications the proposal received under sub-sections (2) to (4), it shall, communicate such modifications to the person or the State Government concerned and if such modifications have been accepted by such person or State Government, the Board shall communicate the approval to the Central Government; (c) rejects the proposal received under sub-sections (2) to (4), it shall record the reasons therefor and communicate the rejection to the Central Government which shall intimate to the State Government or the person concerned. (10) The Central Government shall, on receipt of communication under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (9), grant, within such time as may be prescribed, a letter of approval on such terms and conditions and obligations and entitlements as may be approved by the Board, to the Developer, being the person or the State Government concerned: Provided that the Central Government may, on the basis of approval of the Board, approve more than one Developer in a Special Economic Zone in cases where one Developer does not have in his possession the minimum area of contiguous land, as may be prescribed, for setting up a Special Economic Zone and in such cases, each Developer shall be considered as a Developer in respect of the land in his possession. (11) Any person who, or a State Government which, intends to provide any infrastructure facilities in the identified area referred to in sub-sections (2) to (4), or undertake any authorised operation, may, after entering into an agreement with the Developer referred to in sub-section (10), make a proposal for the same to the Board for its approval and the provisions of sub-section (5) and sub-sections (7) to (10) shall, as far as may be, apply to the said proposal made by such person or State Government. (12) Every person or a State Government referred to in sub-section (11), whose proposal has been approved by the Board and who, or which, has been granted letter of approval by the Central Government, shall be considered as a Co-Developer of the Special Economic Zone. (13) Subject to the provisions of this section and the letter of approval granted to a Developer, the Developer may allocate space or built up area or provide infrastructure services to the approved Units in accordance with the agreement entered into by him with the entrepreneurs of such Units. S. 4. Establishment of Special Economic Zone and approval and authorisation to operation to, Developer:- (1) The Developer shall, after the grant of letter of approval under sub-section (10) of Section 3, submit the exact particulars of the identified area referred to in sub-sections (2) to (4) of that section, to the Central Government and thereupon that Government may, after satisfying that the requirements, under sub-section (8) of Section 3 and other requirements, as may be prescribed, are fulfilled, notify the specifically identified area in the State as a Special Economic Zone: Provided that the Central Government may-- Provided that an existing Special Economic Zone shall be deemed to have been notified and established in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall, as far as may be, apply to such Zone accordingly: Provided further that the Central Government may, after notifying the Special Economic Zone, if it considers appropriate, notify subsequently any additional area to be included as a part of that Special Economic Zone. (2) After the appointed day, the Board may, authorise the Developer to undertake in a Special Economic Zone, such operations which the Central Government may authorise. S. 31. (2) After the appointed day, the Board may, authorise the Developer to undertake in a Special Economic Zone, such operations which the Central Government may authorise. S. 31. Constitution of Authority:- (1) The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute, for every Special Economic Zone established by it before the commencement of this Act or which may be established after such commencement by the Central Government, an Authority to be called the...........(name of the Special Economic Zone) Authority to exercise the powers conferred on, and discharge the functions assigned to, it under this Act: Provided that in respect of existing Special Economic Zones established by the Central Government, such Authority shall be constituted by the Central Government within six months from the date of commencement of this Act: Provided further that until such Authority is constituted, the person or the authority (including the Development Commissioner) exercising control over such existing Special Economic Zones shall continue to exercise such control over the Special Economic Zone till the Authority is constituted. (2) Every Authority shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid, having perpetual succession and a common seal, with a power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract and shall, by the said name, sue and be sued. (3) The head office of every Authority shall be at such place as the Central Government may specify in the notification referred to in sub-section (1). (4) Any Authority may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, establish branch offices at other places in India. (3) The head office of every Authority shall be at such place as the Central Government may specify in the notification referred to in sub-section (1). (4) Any Authority may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, establish branch offices at other places in India. (5) Every Authority shall consist of (a) the Development Commissioner of the Special Economic Zone over which the Authority exercises its jurisdiction - Chairperson, ex officio; (b) two officers of the Central Government to be nominated by that Government having knowledge of, or experience in, dealing with matters relating to Special Economic Zones -Members, ex officio; (c) an officer of the Government of India in the Ministry or Department dealing with commerce on matters relating to Special Economic Zone - Member, ex officio;, (d) not more than two persons, being entrepreneurs or their nominee, to be nominated by the Central Government - Members, ex officio; (6) The term of office of the Members of an Authority (other than ex officio Members) and the manner of filling of vacancies shall be such as may be prescribed. (7) An Authority may associate with itself in such manner, subject to such conditions and for such purposes as may be prescribed, any person whose assistance or advice it requires in discharging its functions effectively and that person shall be entitled to receive such allowances or fees as may be fixed by the Authority. (8) One-third of the total Members of the Authority shall form a quorum, and all the acts of the Authority shall be decided by a majority of the Members present. (9) No act or proceeding of an Authority shall be invalidated merely by reason of:- (a) any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of, the Authority; or (b) any defect in the appointment of a person acting as a Member of the Authority; or (c) any irregularity in the procedure of the Authority not affecting the merits of the case. (10) Every Authority shall meet at such times and places and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at-its meetings (including quorum at such meetings) as may be prescribed. (10) Every Authority shall meet at such times and places and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at-its meetings (including quorum at such meetings) as may be prescribed. S. 36 Constitution of Fund and its application:- (1) There shall be established by every Authority a Fund to be called the........(the name of the Special Economic Zone concerned) Authority Fund and there shall be credited thereto,-- (a) all sums of money, which the Central Government may, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in this behalf, provide to the Authority; (b) all grants or loans that may be made to Authority under this Act; (c) all sums received on account of user or service charges or fees or rent for the use of properties belonging to the Authority; (d) all sums received by the Authority from such other sources as may be decided upon by the Central Government. (2) The Fund shall be applied for meeting-- (a) the salaries, allowances and other remuneration of the members, officers and other employees of the Authority; (b) the expenses of the Authority in the discharge of its functions under Section 34; (c) the repayment of any loan; (d) the expenses on objects and for purposes authorised by this Act; (e) any other administrative expenses of the Authority. S. 51. Act to have overriding effect:- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” On a combined reading of the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005, it is clear that the Special Economic Zone is a creature of SEZ Act, 2005 and the establishment as well as the administration of SEZ is entirely regulated by the provisions of the said Act. As per Section 31 of SEZ Act, 2005 for every Special Economic Zone the Central Government shall constitute an Authority to exercise the powers conferred on it under the SEZ Act. Such Authority shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with a power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. Such Authority shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with a power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. As per Sections 11 & 12 of the SEZ Act, the SEZ has to function under the supervision and control of the Development Commissioner, appointed by the Central Government, who shall be not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India. It is not disputed before this Court that after the Government of India granted approval in principle for setting up of port based SEZ at Kakinada, the Government of Andhra Pradesh entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 3.9.2005 for the development of Special Economic Zone at Kakinada and in terms of the said MOU the Developer – The Kakinada SEZ Private Limited - submitted a requisition for acquisition of the land required for setting up SEZ requesting the State Government to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of 9,869 acres forming a contiguous block situated within 3 to 5 kms. from Kakinada Deep Water Port. Pursuant thereto, the impugned notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act came to be issued. It is also not in dispute that subsequently by proceedings dated 27.6.2006 the Government of India granted formal approval to the proposal made by the Developer Kakinada SEZ Private Limited – for development, operation and maintenance of the port based multi product SEZ at Kakinada over an area of 1,000 hectares subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The facts noticed above demonstrate that Kakinada Special Economic Zone has been constituted under the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005 and “Kakinada Special Economic Zone Private Limited” is only the Developer within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the SEZ Act, 2005. The acquisition of land under the impugned notifications for formation of Kakinada SEZ is for the object sought to be achieved under the SEZ Act and not for the benefit of the Kakinada SEZ Private Limited which is a company registered under the Companies Act. The acquisition of land under the impugned notifications for formation of Kakinada SEZ is for the object sought to be achieved under the SEZ Act and not for the benefit of the Kakinada SEZ Private Limited which is a company registered under the Companies Act. The acquisition under the impugned notifications is to enable the setting up and functioning of the Kakinada SEZ constituted under SEZ Act which has been enacted to generate additional economic activity, to promote export of goods and services, to create employment opportunities and to develop infrastructure facilities. Thus it is clear that the establishment and operation of Kakinada Special Economic Zone is for the development of the State and it is in the larger interest of the general public. As the establishment of the Special Economic Zone under the SEZ Act, 2005 itself is in public interest, the acquisition for setting up Kakinada SEZ shall be deemed to be for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act. In SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT (2008) 9 SCC 552 ) the Supreme Court was dealing with identical facts wherein the land was acquired for the purpose of APIIC. Having applied the principles laid down in various decisions relating to the power of eminent domain and the public purpose, while concluding that the impugned acquisition was for a public purpose, it was held as under : “APIIC is an instrumentality of State and works as “nodal agency” developing the project which would facilitate socio-economic progress of the State by generating revenues, weeding out unemployment and bringing in new avenues and opportunities for public at large. Development of infrastructure is legal and legitimate “public purpose” for exercising power of eminent domain. Simply because a company has been chosen for fulfilment of such public purpose does not mean that the larger public interest has been sacrificed, ignored or disregarded. It will also not make exercise of power bad, mala fide or for collateral purpose vitiating the proceedings. In our judgments, the respondents are right in submitting that in case of integrated and indivisible project, the project has to be taken as a whole and must be judged whether it is in the larger public interest. It cannot be split into different components and to consider whether each and every component will serve public good. A holistic approach has to be adopted in such matters. It cannot be split into different components and to consider whether each and every component will serve public good. A holistic approach has to be adopted in such matters. If the project taken as a whole is an attempt in the direction of bringing foreign exchange, generating employment opportunities and securing economic benefits to the State and the public at large, it will serve public purpose.” The ratio laid down in the above case, in my considered opinion, squarely applies to the case on hand since the impugned acquisition is to facilitate lawful establishment and operation of a Special Economic Zone for realizing the object sought to be achieved under the SEZ Act, 2005. Once a declaration is made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, as per subsection (3) of Section 6 the same shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purpose. The law is also well-settled that it is for the Government to decide whether the acquisition is for public purpose and it is not open to judicial scrutiny unless there is mala fide or colourable exercise of power. No such allegations are made in the present case and in the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Government is justified in initiating the impugned proceedings for acquiring the lands in question for formation of Kakinada SEZ. The decision of the Government that it is for a public purpose warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review. However, while referring to the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 28.10.2006 wherein it was mentioned that the lands were sought to be acquired for Kakinada Special Economic Zone and that the entire amount of compensation to be awarded for the lands was to be paid by the said company, Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as the entire compensation was to be paid by the Kakinada SEZ company for which the land was acquired, the impugned notifications declaring that the land was needed for a public purpose were invalid. It is contended that the notifications ought to have declared that the land is needed for the company and the procedure under Part-VII of the Act read with the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 should have been followed. It is contended that the notifications ought to have declared that the land is needed for the company and the procedure under Part-VII of the Act read with the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 should have been followed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon SHYAM BEHARI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS ( AIR 1965 SC 427 ) and DEVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJANB (2008) 1 SCC 728 ). Section 6 of the Act reads as under: “6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Part. VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5A, sub-section (2). Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1):- (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification: Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Explanation 1:- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 1:- In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2:- Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of the public revenues. (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration) and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate, area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing.” Having interpreted the above provision, particularly the 2nd proviso to sub-section (1) read with explanation-2, it has been held by the Supreme Court in PRATIBHA NEMA v. STATE OF M.P. (2003) 10 SCC 626 ) as under: “the distinction between public purpose acquisition and Part VII acquisition has got blurred under the impact of judicial interpretation of relevant provisions. The main and perhaps the decisive distinction lies in the fact whether cost of acquisition comes out of public funds wholly or partly. Here again, even a token or nominal contribution by the government was held to be sufficient compliance with the second proviso to section 6 as held in a catena of decisions. The net result is that by contributing even a trifling sum, the character and pattern of acquisition could be changed by the government. Here again, even a token or nominal contribution by the government was held to be sufficient compliance with the second proviso to section 6 as held in a catena of decisions. The net result is that by contributing even a trifling sum, the character and pattern of acquisition could be changed by the government. In ultimate analysis, what is considered to be an acquisition for facilitating the setting up of an industry in private sector could get imbued with the character of public purpose acquisition if only the government comes forward to sanction the payment of a nominal sum towards compensation. In the present state of law, that seems to be the real position.” There can be no dispute about the well-settled principle of law as reiterated in the above decision. However, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent - Kakinada SEZ and Sri S. Sriram, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would contend that the statement contained in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act that the compensation amount would be paid by the company cannot be taken as the decisive factor to conclude that the acquisition is for a company. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that having regard to the fact that the land sought to be acquired under the impugned notifications is for the purpose of formation of a Special Economic Zone at the instance of its Developer under the provisions of SEZ Act, 2005, the same shall be deemed to be the development sponsored by a local authority within the meaning of “public purpose” under Section 3 (f) of the Act. The definition of “public purpose” under Section 3 (f) of the Act is illustrative and as per clause (vii) it includes “the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government, or with the prior approval of the appropriate Government by a local authority”. The expression “local authority” has been defined under Section 3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act as under: “3(aa). The expression “local authority” includes a Town Planning Authority (by whatever name called) set up under any law for the time being in force.” A plain reading of the above definition shows that it includes the authority set up under any law. The expression “local authority” has been defined under Section 3(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act as under: “3(aa). The expression “local authority” includes a Town Planning Authority (by whatever name called) set up under any law for the time being in force.” A plain reading of the above definition shows that it includes the authority set up under any law. The Special Economic Zone is a statutory body constituted under the SEZ Act, 2005 and its administration is totally regulated by the provisions of the said Act. It is also relevant to note that under Section 31 of the SEZ Act an Authority has to be constituted for every Special Economic Zone and such Authority shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with a power to acquire hold and dispose of the property both movable and immovable. Section 34 deals with the functions of authority which included the development of infrastructure in the Special Economic Zone, to levy user or service charges for the use of properties belonging to the Authority and reviewing the functioning and performance of the Special Economic Zone. Section 36 of the SEZ Act, 2005 further provides for constitution of a Fund which shall be applied for meeting the purposes mentioned thereunder. In the light of the above provisions, indisputably the Special Economic Zone is a “local authority” within the meaning of Section 3 (aa) of the Act. Consequently, the provision of land for the scheme of development by the SEZ amounts to a public purpose as defined under Section 3 (f) (vii) of the Act. It is also relevant to note that “Special Economic Zone” is a new concept introduced initially in the year 2000 as per the policy decision taken by the Government of India, Industry & Commerce in its export and import policy for promotion of exports and to augment improved foreign exchange. By the promulgation of the SEZ Act, 2005 which came into force w.e.f. 23.06.2005, the earlier policy decisions attained the statutory status. As observed in STATE OF BIHAR v. KAMESHWAR SINGH (1 supra) the definition of “public purpose” takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and state of society and its needs. As observed in STATE OF BIHAR v. KAMESHWAR SINGH (1 supra) the definition of “public purpose” takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and state of society and its needs. It was also observed in the said decision as under: “… … With the onward march of civilization our notions as to the scope of the general interest of the community are fast changing and widening with the result that our old and narrower notions as to the sanctity of the private interest of the individual can no longer stem the forward flowing tide of time and must necessarily give way to the broader notions of the general interest of the community.” Thus the question whether the formation of Special Economic Zone is a public purpose or not requires determination in the context of the object sought to be achieved under the SEZ Act, 2005 and keeping in view the needs of the situation and the changing circumstances. If examined in the above lines, the formation of the Special Economic Zone in my considered opinion is a public purpose within the meaning of Section 3 (f) of the Act. In this context it is also relevant to refer to the recent decision in BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2010) 7 SCC 129 ) wherein the Supreme Court while observing that acquisitions for economic development and industrial growth include acquisitions for industrial layouts / zones / Corporations owned or controlled by the State, expansion of existing industries and setting up Special Economic Zones, held that in such category of acquisitions the beneficiaries are industrial or business houses, though ultimately there will be indirect benefit to the public by way of generation of employment and overall economic development. In the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the above decision, undoubtedly the acquisition under the impugned notifications for formation of Kakinada SEZ is for a public purpose. The contention of the petitioners that the acquisition under the impugned notifications is for a company cannot be accepted also for the reason that the formation of Special Economic Zone does not come under any of the clauses provided under Section 40 (1) of the Act. Hence the contention that the procedure under Part-VII of the Act ought to have been followed is untenable. Hence the contention that the procedure under Part-VII of the Act ought to have been followed is untenable. The learned counsel for the petitioners while submitting that as on today no Authority is constituted as contemplated under Section 31 of the SEZ Act and no Development Commissioner is appointed under Section 11 of the SEZ Act further contended that unless and until the Authority is constituted, there cannot be any acquisition of land for the formation of the SEZ. Even assuming that the Authority as provided under Section 31 of the SEZ Act, 2005 has not been constituted so far, the acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated on that ground. Once the acquisition for formation of SEZ is found to be for a public purpose, the Government cannot be precluded from proceeding further merely on the ground that the Authority under the SEZ Act, 2005 has not been constituted. In AFLATOON v. Lt. GOVERNOR OF DELHI (1975) 4 SCC 285 ) it was held that acquisition generally precedes development and following the said principle it was held in BHAGAT SINGH, ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ( 1998 (9) Supreme 361 ) that acquisition for a public purpose and obtaining permission from the competent authority under the concerned Development Act for change of land use are different from one another and the former is not dependent upon the latter. Hence the impugned acquisition proceedings in anticipation of the constitution of the Authority under the SEZ Act cannot be held to be illegal. The impugned proceedings are assailed by the petitioners on two other grounds as under : As the declarations under Section 6 of the Act were not published in daily newspapers and its substance was not published in the locality, the proceedings are vitiated. It is also contended that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to raise the objections and that the objections raised were rejected without proper application of mind to the relevant factors and therefore the declarations under Section 6 as well as the consequential proceedings suffered from illegality, irrationality and procedural irregularity. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI (2005) 7 SCC 627 ). In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI (2005) 7 SCC 627 ). It is explained in the counter-affidavits filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) that an extent of Ac.267.71 cents of Moolapeta (V) of U. Kothapalli (M) was notified by the District Collector, in Ref.G5/5907/05, dated 29.12.2005. Out of the above an extent of Ac.19.20 Cents was covered in Sy.No.45/1 of Moolapeta (V) Kakinada Division, U. Kothapalli Mandal covered by L.A. for KSEZ, Kakinada. The said lands were acquired under Section 4 (1) notification dated 29.12.2005 which was published in two daily newspapers Deccan Chronicle and Vaartha, dated 30.12.2005. The substance of the said notification was also published in the locality on 3.1.2006. Though the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with notice the notification dated 29.12.2005 invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.327 of 2006 directing to conduct 5-A enquiry, notices dated 16.1.2006 were issued to all the concerned to file their objections, if any. Thereafter, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was also conducted and the objections received from the landowners were rejected by the Collector by proceedings dated 27.4.2006. Thereafter, the draft declaration was published in the Gazette, dated 28.10.2006 and two daily newspapers namely Deccan Chronicle, dated 31.10.2006 and Andhra Bhoomi, dated 1.11.2006. The substance was also published in the locality on 4.11.2006. So far as lands in Ponnada Village are concerned, it is stated that the Director, Kakinada Special Economic Zone Private Limited sent requisition in Form-I for acquisition of land measuring Ac.244-35 cents in Ponnada village compact block. The lands proposed for acquisition was inspected by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada along with the Mandal Revenue Officer and Surveyors and thereafter the draft notifications proposals were submitted to the District Collector vide proceedings dated 1.1.2006. Pursuant thereto, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 1.1.2006 and two daily newspapers namely Deccan Chronicle and Prajasakti, dated 2.1.2006 The substance was also published in the locality on 2.1.2006. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 20.02.2006 and the objections raised by the land owners were rejected by the District Collector. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 20.02.2006 and the objections raised by the land owners were rejected by the District Collector. Thereafter draft declaration was published in the Gazette, dated 28.10.2006 for an extent of Ac.114.08 cents. The declaration was also published in Vaartha and New Indian Express dated 31.10.2006 and the substance was published in the locality on 4.11.2006. The award was passed on 8.2.2008 following due process of law so far as the petitioner in W.P.No.19941 of 2008. The land was taken possession by the Tahsildar, U. Kothapalli and the same was handed over to the Special Economic Zone, Kakinada on 12.2.2008. Having regard to the particulars furnished in the counter-affidavit with regard to the publications made in the newspapers and in the locality, which stood uncontradicted, the allegation that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated for want of publication of the declaration in local dailies as well as the locality is unfounded. Similarly the allegation in the writ petitions that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners to raise the objections in the 5-A enquiry has been categorically denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector and no other material could be placed before this Court on behalf of the petitioners to substantiate their allegation that there was no effective hearing. At any rate, having regard to the admitted fact that Section 6 declarations were made long back in the year 2006 and even the award was passed on 8.2.2008, these writ petitions filed on 11.9.2008 and 23.12.2008 are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. Having failed to challenge the validity of the notifications on the above said grounds within reasonable time and having allowed the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings, it is not open to the petitioners, who are very well aware of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings, to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this belated stage. In identical circumstances in SAWARAN LATA v. STATE OF HARYANA ( AIR 2010 SC 1664 ) wherein a large chunk of land was notified for acquisition, while observing that it cannot be presumed that the petitioners were not aware of the acquisition proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the delay in challenging the notification was fatal and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is also explained in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that in respect of about 1,550 acres of land, awards were already passed, compensation was paid and possession of the lands was also taken. Except an extent of Ac.92-16 cents scattered here and there in small bits surrounded by the land already acquired, the possession of the rest of the land was already taken. Therefore on that ground also the petitioners cannot be granted any relief at this stage. As observed by the Supreme Court in JAYABHERI PROPERTIES (P) LTD. v. STATE OF A.P. (2010) 5 SCC 590 ), the public interest shall outweigh the interest of the individuals. Similar view has been expressed in BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (8 supra) observing as under : “Where arbitrary and unexplained deletions and exclusions from acquisition, of large extents of notified lands, render the acquisitions meaningless, or totally unworkable, the court will have no alternative but to quash the entire acquisition. But where many landlosers have accepted the acquisition and received the compensation, and where possession of considerable portions of acquired lands has already been taken, and development activities have been carried out by laying plots and even making provisional or actual allotments, those factors have to be taken note of, while granting relief. .. … …” For the aforesaid reasons, the contentions that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and that the proceedings are vitiated for not complying with the procedure under Part-VII are untenable and cannot be accepted. In the light of the object sought to be achieved by the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005, the acquisition of land for formation of a Special Economic Zone is for a public purpose and therefore it is well within the power of the eminent domain. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions, which are devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed. No costs.