S.R. Singharavelu, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 8.10.1991 passed in W.P. Nos. 3693 of 1986 (batch containing 41 matters). The third respondent/writ petitioner in all these writ petitions have challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (appellant/third respondent) under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, to acquire lands for public purposes and issue of Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquis ition Act (hereinafter referred to as the).

2. In the affidavit of the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner, it was contended that public purposes specified in the acquisition Notifications are vague and do not contain any material particulars with sufficient clarity so as to enable the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner to make effective objections in an enquiry under Section 5-A of the. In the first of the above referred to three Notifications involved in these proceedings, the public purpose is stated as for the implementation of the Housing Schemes to meet the demands made by various sectors of the population under Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Further Extension Scheme; in the second, it is, for the creation of new Neighbourhood, known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Part II Schemes. Likewise, in the third, it is for increasing housing accommodation for the development of South Madras Neighbourhood.

3. While dealing with the writ petitions, it was held that there was no indication of either the class of persons for whom the houses were to be constructed or of the necessity for the same.

4. Reliance was placed by the single Judge in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. A.Mohammed Yousuf and others, JT 1991 (3) SC 347 [LQ/SC/1991/359] , wherein it was held that the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act read with Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, can be commenced only after framing the Scheme for which the land was required; if the Notification under Section 4(1) of thewas published without waiting for the Scheme, it will not be possible for the land owners to object to the acquisition on the ground that the land was not suitable for the Scheme and therefore, does not serve any public purpose.

5. By relying upon the above observations, the single Judge held in his order dated 8.10.1991 that, in all the Notifications above mentioned and issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the public purposes specified therein were vague and did not contain material particulars with clarity so as to enable the petitioners, land owners to make effective objection in an enquiry under Section 5-A of theand that as details of the Scheme/relevant material particulars were not furnished, it was held that all the aforesaid 4(1) Notification suffers from lack of particulars and therefore, the impugned Notifications were quashed and the writ petitions were allowed; against which, the writ appeal has been preferred.

6. The only ground on which the writ petition allowed was that, the impugned Notification under Section 4(1) of thewas vague. From the contents of the affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner, it is understandable that the Notification under Section 4(1) of thewas issued under G.O. Ms. No. 412, Housing dated 9.5.1975 publishing the same in Supplement Part II, Section 2 Gazette dated 11.6.1975. It was further stated that no enquiry under Section 5-A of thewas held and a Draft Declaration under Section 6 of thewas issued under G.O. Ms. No. 975, Housing dated 7.6.1978, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part-II Section 2 dated 9.6.1978. Notices were sent under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the; in spite of letters sent to the Housing Board by the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner, there was no extension of time for enquiry in connection with the passing of award. The Notices issued by the Special Tahsildar (L.A), Tamil Nadu Housing Board enclosing the Award No.2/86 dated 11.4.1986 were served on the 3rd respondent in each writ petition on 26.4.1986. The 3rd respondent/writ petitioner came to know about the acquisition proceedings only in August 1985, when notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the was served on them. Subsequently, the writ petitions were filed on 28.4.1986.

7. Thus, Notification under Section 4(1) of thewas dated 9.5.1975. Notices were sent under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the on 11.6.1975 and the Award under Section 11 of thewas passed on 11.4.1986. The allegation of 3rd respondent/writ petitioner is that there was no enquiry under Section 5-A of the. To mention again, the writ petitions were allowed solely on the ground of vagueness of Notification.

8. Later on, the decision of law about vagueness was different, as was made in State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, AIR 1996 SC 497 [LQ/SC/1995/1046] . By distinguishing the order made in Mounshi Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1150 [LQ/SC/1972/384] and following the decision in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 2077 [LQ/SC/1974/251] , it was held in the above cited case, whether the public purpose stated in a particular Notification is vague or not would be a question of fact to be decided in each case and cannot be treated as a question of law. It was also emphasized that where large extents are sought to be acquired for development or similar purposes, it would not be possible to specify how each owners bit would be utilised and for what purpose. The very same aspect was also emphasized in a later Constitution Bench decided in Lila Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 2112 [LQ/SC/1975/285] .

9. In this case, the purpose of the acquisition was for the creation of new Neighbourhood Scheme known as Kalaignar Karunanidhi Part II Scheme; for increasing housing accommodation for the development of South Madras Neighbourhood; and for the implementation of Housing Schemes to meet the demands made by various sectors under Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar Further Extension Scheme, especially when bits of land from various land owners are sought to be acquired. The above connotations made in the Notification picturise the very purpose of the acquisition. To describe them as vague is a futile attempt. Excepting to state that further information and particulars are not furnished, nothing was indicated to make out a caser for vagueness. In fact, vagueness vanishes when once the purpose is clearly embodied in the Notification. Thus both on facts and in law, vagueness does not exist and that too as a ground for setting aside the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the.

10. Again on the question of laches, it was mentioned in the above cited case law, State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, AIR 1996 SC 497 [LQ/SC/1995/1046] , that there was failure on the part of land owner to move the Court soon after the declaration under Section 6 was made and it was observed that such failure was on the part of the petitioners, which would be considered as fatal. In this case also, even according to the contents of the affidavit of the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner, they have come to know about the acquisition proceedings in August 1985 when notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the was served on them and that they have preferred the writ petition only on 20.4.1986, after having waited till the passing of the award on 11.4.1986. So, this kind of laches would naturally be fatal to the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner. In fact, it was so held in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ananthi Ammal, AIR 1995 SC 21 [LQ/SC/1994/584] l4, that the Notification of acquisition cannot be challenged after the award was passed. Moreover, there is no locus standi for the subsequent purchaser like the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner to question the same. This is fortified by the following observation found in The U.P. Jal Nigam v. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., JT 1996 (1) SC 354 [LQ/SC/1996/131] .

Since M/s. Kalra Properties, respondent had purchased the land after the Notification under Section 4(1) was published, its sale is void against the State and it acquired no right, title or interest in the land. Consequently, it is settled law that it cannot challenge the validity of the Notification or the regularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6 was published.

11. For all these reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed, dismissing the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.