Planned development acquisition need not specify each parcel's end use at notification stage; locality publication may rest on affixation and presumption.

For acquisition of a large tract for planned development of Delhi, the notification under Section 4(1) was not invalid merely because it did not specify the precise end use of each parcel at the outset; planned development itself was already a recognised public purpose, and later master and zonal planning could follow the acquisition. The locality publication requirement was also satisfied where the Gazette publication was undisputed and the record showed affixation of the notice at a conspicuous place in the village, supported by the presumption that official acts are regularly performed. On both grounds, the acquisition challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether acquisition of a large area of land for planned development of Delhi was vitiated for want of specification of the precise purpose or particular use of the land at the stage of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) whether the substance of the Section 4(1) notification was duly published in the locality as required by law.

Issue (i): whether acquisition of a large area of land for planned development of Delhi was vitiated for want of specification of the precise purpose or particular use of the land at the stage of notification under Section 4(1).

Analysis: Planned development of Delhi had already been recognised as a public purpose. In the case of acquisition of a large tract comprising several plots, the purpose may be stated with reference to the acquisition as a whole, and it is not a condition precedent that every parcel of land must be earmarked for a particular micro-purpose before issuance of the notification. The later preparation of master plans, zonal plans and developmental details is part of the post-acquisition exercise and does not invalidate the initial decision to acquire for planned development.

Conclusion: The notification under Section 4(1) was not invalid for want of particularisation of the precise use of the acquired land, and this objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the substance of the Section 4(1) notification was duly published in the locality as required by law.

Analysis: The Gazette publication was undisputed. On the locality publication, the record and endorsements were examined and accepted as showing affixation of the notice at a conspicuous place in the village. The Court held that the statutory requirement was satisfied and that the presumption that official acts are regularly performed applied, there being no sufficient basis to displace it.

Conclusion: The substance of the notification was duly published in the locality, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition was upheld in law, and the appeals failed on both substantive challenges.

Ratio Decidendi: For acquisition of a large area for planned development, the notification is not invalid merely because the precise end-use of every parcel is not specified at the outset, and compliance with locality publication may be sustained on proof of affixation and the presumption of regular performance of official acts.

---