Planned development land acquisition upheld where public purpose was specific enough and Section 5A hearing was not disproved.

Acquisition for execution of the Interim General Plan for Greater Delhi was treated as a valid public purpose, and the vagueness challenge failed because the overall planned-development scheme sufficiently identified the acquisition's object; the fact that some lands were later excluded did not affect legality. The challenge under Section 5A also failed because the record did not establish denial of a hearing: the written objection was on file, the Collector considered the objections, and there was no reliable material showing that the landowner's representative had actually appeared and been refused audience. The validity of the acquisition proceedings was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acquisition of land for the execution of the Interim General Plan for the Greater Delhi was vague or not a public purpose and liable to be quashed; (ii) whether the acquisition proceedings were invalid because the appellant was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.

Issue (i): Whether acquisition of land for the execution of the Interim General Plan for the Greater Delhi was vague or not a public purpose and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The challenge based on vagueness was not raised in the High Court and could not be agitated for the first time in appeal. In any event, the stated purpose was held to be sufficiently specific in the context of acquisition of a very large area, where different parcels could be required for different components of the development plan. The execution of the Interim General Plan was treated as part of planned development and as a public purpose. The fact that the notification had the effect of freezing land did not affect its validity, since such consequence follows from a notification under Section 4. The circumstance that some other lands were later excluded from acquisition did not undermine the legality of the appellant's acquisition.

Conclusion: The acquisition for execution of the Interim General Plan was for a valid public purpose and was not invalid for vagueness.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition proceedings were invalid because the appellant was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.

Analysis: The record did not support the contention that a representative of the appellant had actually appeared before the Collector on the hearing date. The written representation was on the file, and there was no reliable material to show denial of hearing. The Collector had considered objections and made recommendations, and the legal requirement under Section 5A was treated as satisfied on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The contention that the appellant was denied an opportunity of hearing was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The validity of the land acquisition proceedings was upheld and both appeals were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In acquisition of a large area for planned development, the public purpose need only be identified with reference to the overall scheme, and compliance with Section 5A is satisfied where the objections are considered and the record does not establish denial of a hearing.

---