ORDER

1. Certain extent of land in three villages was sought to be acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short). The said notification reads thus:

"Part 1 M.P. Gazette dated 12-10-1984-1189Bhind dated 26-9-1984

S. No. Court Land - Sampadan - 1984-20472-75. Because the State Government feels that land described in columns 1 to 6 of the attached Schedule are needed for the public purpose mentioned in column 6 of the Schedule or likely to be needed, therefore in compliance with Section 4 sub-section (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (S. No. 1, San 1894) all the connected persons are hereby notified. The State Government authorised the officer mentioned in column 55 of the Schedule for using the power in this regard mentioned under Section 4(2). The State Government also directed that provision of Section 5-A will not be applicable to this land, because in his opinion the provision of Section 17 sub-section (1) is applicable to this land: .

SEHEDULE

Description of Land

DistrictTehsilCity/VillageApproxi mate area (hectare)Authorised

Officer under Section 4(2) Description of public purpose

BhindGohadSinghwani 35.828 Director Industries, M.P. Bhind or his representative Industries establishment

BhindGohadGurikha 39.708 dodo

BhindGohadMalanpur 39.708 dodo

The map of the land (plan) can be seen in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhind.

By the name of Governor of M.P. and by his order

sd/-

H. Singh,

Collector,

Mandal Bhind

And

Padem,

Deputy Secretary,

M.P. Government,

Revenue Department"

2. The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court questioning the validity of this notification alleging that it suffered from a number of infirmities, principal infirmity being that the said notification was totally vague in respect of the lands sought to be acquired. In that, neither the description of the lands i.e. survey number or khasra number were given nor the names of the landowners, whose lands were sought to be acquired in

three villages, were given. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Section 4(1) notification aforementioned. The respondents herein took up the matters in appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court agreed with the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the notification issued under Section 4(1) was bad. However, to balance the equities, the Division Bench held that the appellants could be compensated by giving enhanced compensation in respect of the lands of some of the appellants. Hence, these appeals.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment having agreed with the learned Single Judge that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was bad, ought not to have sustained the acquisition proceedings by only awarding enhanced compensation in respect of a few of the appellants. The learned counsel submitted that in the light of the judgment of this Court in M.P. Housing Board v. Mohd. Shaftl the notification issued under Section 4(1) was vitiated and the learned Single Judge was right in quashing the said notification.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions to support the impugned judgment. They contended that having regard to the developments that have taken place in that area, this Court may not disturb the impugned judgment. They added that even the enhanced compensation amount can be given to the appellants.

5. A Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the aforementioned judgment, referring to earlier judgments, have held that notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, if it suffers from vagueness in regard to public purpose, such a notification cannot be sustained. In this judgment, reference is made to the judgment in Narendrajit Singh v. State of U.p2 wherein it is stated that the d