JUDGMENT

ORDER:—After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we find that it is not a fit case for interference. It is seen that admittedly a notice was issued under Section 5A to the peititoner on July 18, 1991 calling upon the petitioner to submit his written objections, if any, and it was stated specifically in the notice thus:

"Therefore, you are hereby informed that if you have any objection in respect of acquisition of this land pursuant to the resolutions under the said Act, you shall, personally or through your authorised person or Advocate, make representation in that respect to the office of the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer Shri Vyas within 30 days from the date of the publication of this public notice and the time of producing objections, the facts stated by you or your advocate shall also be heard."

2. The petitioner was informed that if he had any objection in respect of the acquisition of his land, pursuant to the notification under the said Act, he should, personally or through his authorised representative or Advocate, make representation in that behalf to the Deputy Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer Shri Vyas, within 30 days f