Petitioners have submitted that with a view to set up the Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project, land admeasuring 427.08 acres situated at village Sidhikhurd was sought to be acquired. The petitioners owned approximately 25 acres of land. Notification issued under section 4 was vague, thus the petitioners had no knowledge about the acquisition proceedings or the proceedings taken up under section 5A of the Act. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was also illegal. The land was sought to be acquired for 'public purpose' for setting up Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project whereas acquisition was for and on behalf of respondent No. 6 Sasan Power Limited. It was mandatory upon the respondents to mention in the notification that the acquisition was for a company. The prayer was also made to direct respondent company to give benefit as per 2007 rehabilitation package or a better package and not in accordance with the 1992 rehabilitation package/policy. Notification under section 17(3) was assailed on the ground that enquiry under section 5A had already been taken up, therefore, notification under section 17 of the Act could not have been issued. It was necessary to comply and follow the procedure prescribed under Rules 3,4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Company Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1963). Shri R.K.Samaiya, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that notification under section 4 of the Act and declaration under section 6 of the Act were illegal inasmuch as it was mentioned that acquisition was for "public purpose" for setting up Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project whereas acquisition was for a company. When acquisition was for a company, it could not be said to be included in the public purpose. It ought to have been mentioned that acquisition was for and on behalf of respondent No. 6 company. He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Shyam Behari and others Vs. State of M.P. And others AIR 1965 SC 427 and Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others - 2007 AIR SCW 6692, in which it has been laid down that the declaration has to be made for public purpose or for a private company, it could not be for both. The Counsel has further submitted that the writ petition did not suffer with laches. Notification under section 4 was issued on 8.8.2006, declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.8.2007 and notification under section 17(1)(3) was issued on 23.6.2008. The writ petition was filed on 17.11.2008.