Land acquisition declaration upheld where Government satisfaction was not expressly recited in the section 6 notification.

A section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act is not invalid merely because the Government's satisfaction that the land is needed for a public purpose is not expressly recited in the notification. The statutory condition precedent is that such satisfaction must in fact exist, especially after consideration of section 5A objections, but the Act prescribes no particular form for the declaration. A declaration stating that the land is needed for a public purpose is sufficient, and the published declaration operates as conclusive evidence of that need. In the absence of a direct challenge to the Government's actual satisfaction, the acquisition proceedings were upheld and the suit was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is invalid unless the Government's satisfaction that the land is needed for a public purpose appears expressly in the notification itself.

Analysis: The requirement of satisfaction under section 6 is a condition precedent to a valid acquisition, especially after consideration of objections under section 5A. But the language of section 6 does not require the notification to state the satisfaction in express terms. The section requires a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose, and the published declaration becomes conclusive evidence of that need. Since the Act does not prescribe any particular form for the notification, the use of words indicating that it appears to the Governor that the land is required does not by itself invalidate the declaration. In the absence of any pleading or issue directly challenging the actual satisfaction of the Government, the proceedings could not be vitiated merely because satisfaction was not recited in express terms.

Conclusion: The section 6 notification was valid, and the acquisition proceedings were not invalid merely because the Government's satisfaction was not expressly stated in the notification.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition notifications survived challenge, and the dismissal of the suit was restored in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act is not invalid merely because it does not expressly recite the Government's satisfaction, so long as the statutory condition precedent of satisfaction has in fact been reached.

---