SIRAJ MOHAMMAD Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI BIAORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, I am of the considered opinion, that petition has no substance.

(2.) INDEED, the issue involved in this case has to be decided keeping in view the general observations made by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1236, which reads as follows :-

(3.) WHEN I examine the facts of the case and challenge made to notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act then I find absolutely no merit in the challenge so made. The impugned Notification (Annexure P-l) issued by the State on 4-4-2003 under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act is sought to be assailed essentially or rather only on the ground of vagueness. In other words, the grievance of the petitioner whose land is sought to be acquired alongwith several others is that the Notification in question does not give the description of land and other information in relation to public purpose in detail and hence in view of law laid down by Supreme court in the case of Mohammad Shaft, 1992 JLJ 331, the impugned Notification is liable to be quashed on the ground of vagueness. As observed supra, I find no merit in this submission.