1. Challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the order of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated February 19, 1976 holding that the declaration dated April 3, 1964 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is vitiated and, therefore, quashed. We have learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the reasoning given or accepted by the High Court for coming to the conclusion that the declaration is vitiated is wrong. The purpose for which the acquisition had been initially notified is not changed merely because by passage of time the Delhi Development Authority came into existence to monitor the very purpose for which the land had been initially notified to be acquired. The purpose continued to be the same and the High Court went wrong in recording the finding that it was changed. For this reason, we reverse the decision, allow the appeal and hold that the declaration is not open to challenge

2. Respondent 1 has a different contention to advance, namely, that his is a residential house and the same is on a part of the property to be acquired and there is no justification to include this as a part of the acquisition when the purpose is for providing housing. We had adjourned the matter to give an opportunity to the counsel for the Union of India to indicate to us whether the property of respondent 1 constitutes a pocket which if left out from acquisition might create difficulty for the DDA to operate. He has not been able to indicate to us that it this property is left out any problem would be created in the matter of developmental operation

3. In these circumstances, we direct that respondent 1s residence and the vacant side appurtenant thereto said to be within the limit of one bigha and eight biswas of land shall be released from acquisition4. No costs.