While relying upon Smt. Somavanti and others v. State of Punjab and others AIR 1963 SC 151 he sought to contend that the declaration by the State as to the acquisition being for a public purpose is not to be lightly interfered with and such declaration should be considered to be conclusive evidence of the fact that it is so needed. He further submitted that the very definition of the expression 'Public purpose' is an inclusive definition and not a compendious one, therefore, it would include a purpose in which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly and vitally concerned. Therefore, according to Ld. Sr. Counsel source of funding by itself would not be the determining factor. In the instant case, from the very beginning, the Government has been consistent, clear and satisfied that acquisition of revenue Rastas which hinder planned development can be acquired on the condition that alternative access has to be provided and that to, by means of developed roads. In such a case, the acquisition is for the benefit of the public, clearly demonstrating the fulfilment of a public purpose and therefore, this conclusive satisfaction of the Government that the acquisition is for a public purpose ought not to be questioned. Considering that, in the instant case, the declaration of the Government is related to a public purpose as distinct from a purely private purpose, the exercise of power by the Government in acquiring the land cannot be faulted and SANDHU RUPINDER KAUR 2014.10.06 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
