MALAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The only argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Land Acquisition Officer issued the notification under Section 6(17) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894') and there is no provisions of law like Section 6(17) in the Act of 1894 and therefore, the notice is illegal. It appears from the copies of the notices placed on record that the notices were issued under Section 9(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 and inadvertently in the body of the notice, it has been mentioned that on 22nd Sept., 1992 the notification has already been issued under Section 6(17). It appears that it is only a mistake in description not effecting the nature of the notice and it appears that because of this no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, therefore, I do not find that it has effected the acquisition proceedings in any manner.

(3.) Therefore, 1 do not find any force in the writ petition filed by the petitioners and the same is hereby dismissed. The stay order granted on 18-2-1993 and modified on 23-3-1994 are set aside and therefore, the stay petition is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.