Judgment Banerjee, J.: 1. This appeal is directed against on order dated 30th July, 1996 passed by a Single Judge of, this Court on the writ petition being W. P. No. 26/95, G. A. No. 2029/95 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present appeal are more or less admitted. The appellant filed a writ application in January 1995 challenging the notification dated 22nd October, .1994 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by which the respondent-State of West Bengal sought to acquire a portion of premises No.3, Baikunta Sen Lane, Calcutta, which belonged to the petitioner. The premises in question had been subject of requisition under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 since 10th of July, 1965, for housing a rationing office. It was requisitioned by an order dated 27th March, 1992. But, the vacant possession was not handed over to the appellant. For the same, the appellant filed a writ application claiming vacant possession of the premises and such writ application was disposed of on 20th January, 1993 directing the authorities to vacate the premises within a specified period. That period was, subsequently, extended by the Court on the basis of the submissions by the authorities and this Court in connection with that writ application passed the last order dated 3rd of March, 1994 extending the period for 4 months for the purpose of completing the procedure to acquire the property by the respondent/State and the same was done without prejudice to the petitioners right to challenge the acquisition. The notification acquiring the property as noted above was issued within the extended period. 3. In the writ application, the appellant/petitioner contended that the ground floor of the premises in question covered an area of 3 cottahs but through the notification, the respondents sought to acquire only 2 cottahs 3 chataks and 13.5 sq. feets of such ground floor. Yet in the impugned notification, the premises in question was described with reference to the outer boundary of the entire premises. It was, therefore, contended in the writ petition that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was vague and could not be sustained. 4. feets of such ground floor. Yet in the impugned notification, the premises in question was described with reference to the outer boundary of the entire premises. It was, therefore, contended in the writ petition that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was vague and could not be sustained. 4. In view of the aforesaid specific contention of the appellant petitioner touching the question of vagueness of the notification, the learned Single Judge considered that question and on careful consideration of the matter in issue, found that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act had given the details of the number of premises proposed to be acquired with the area and boundary. It was also stated that the plan of the land could be inspected in the office of the Collector and, therefore, the learned Judge held that there was no defect in the notification under Section 4(1) as sufficient particulars to identify the premises in question, were given with this observation the learned Judge dismissed the writ application. 5. Through the present appeal, the order of dismissal has been challenged. The only question, therefore, is whether learned Judge was justified in dismissing the writ application. 6. We have heard the respective contention of the learned Counsels for the appellant and the respondent-State. The respective submissions of the parties to this appeal are similar to the submissions made before the learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition. In this way it has been contended that the respondents have sought to acquire only a portion of the area, the ground floor of promises No.3, Baikunta Sen Lane, Calcutta. It has been specifically contended that while the entire ground floor of the premises covers an area of 3 cottahs, the respondents have sought to acquire only 2 cottahs 3 chataks and 13.5 sq. feets thereof. The description given in the notification is erroneous in view of the fact that through such notification, the premises in question have been described with reference to the outer boundary of the entire premises. Therefore, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is vague. feets thereof. The description given in the notification is erroneous in view of the fact that through such notification, the premises in question have been described with reference to the outer boundary of the entire premises. Therefore, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is vague. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the notification not only contains the sufficient description of the 'premises sought to be acquired, but a plan has been prepared by the department prior to the issuance of the notification impugned showing the area sought to be acquired. Therefore, it is submitted that the notification cannot be challenged on the ground of vagueness at all. 7. Admitted position of law here is that if a notification under Section 4(1) of the aforesaid Act is defective and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it vitiates the notification. 8. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned has rightly pointed out that the only person who could be affected by the impugned notification was the petitioner. The notification refers to the portion of the premises "presently under occupation of the Barabazar Rationing Office in the ground floor of the premises". So, the petitioner must have the knowledge about the portion which is sought to be acquired as the ration office has been situated there for the last 30 years. It has been further pointed out that the plan of the building which was prepared prior to the issuance of the notification and of which inspection was offered in the office of the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta demarcated precisely the area proposed to be acquired and there is no allegation from the side of the appellant that there is discrepancy between the map showing the area in the occupation of the rationing office and the area in fact occupied by the rationing office. In the case of (I) logendranath Chatterjee v. State of W. B., AIR 1971 Cal 458 , a Division Bench of this Court decided that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act did not require the land to be defined or identified. There was no necessity to specify the plots or the boundaries only locality must be stated otherwise objections could not be submitted. There was no necessity to specify the plots or the boundaries only locality must be stated otherwise objections could not be submitted. In another case (2) Mukhtvarbegum v. Commissioner of Nagpur Division reported in AIR 1976 Bombay 55, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the notification issued under Section 4 did not suffer from vagueness when the land proposed to be acquired was properly specified and identified on the plan which was available for inspection at the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, as in this case. In the case of (3) Hazari v. State of M. P. (Bhopal) and Ors. reported in AIR 1976 MP 76 , the Full Bench of the M.P. High Court decided that omission to give particulars of land in a notification under Section 4( I) did not render the notification invalid and that specifying the "locality" only, where the land was situated was sufficient compliance of the provisions. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance mainly on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (4) M. P. Housing Board v. Md. Saft & Ors. reported in 1992 (2) SCC 168 . In that case, the Executive Engineer of the M. P. Housing Construction Division addressed a letter to the Land Acquisition Officer, Madhya Pradesh Housing Construction Board stating that he found private land measuring 2.29 hectares situated near the bus stand in Mandasaur city, to be absolutely suitable for the construction of building and shops under self-financing scheme and requested that the said land to be acquired on priority basis. Accordingly, the Collector, Mandasaur issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the schedule to the notification, the only description given about the particulars of 2.298 hectares of land proposed to be acquired was that the same was situate in the District Mandasaur city/village Mandasaur. In the column for public purpose only "residential" was mentioned. This notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 (1). In the schedule to that declaration, Khasra numbers of the proposed land with respective areas were provided and in Column (2) requiring to mention of the "public purpose" for which the land was acquired it was stated for "housing scheme of Housing Board". This notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 (1). In the schedule to that declaration, Khasra numbers of the proposed land with respective areas were provided and in Column (2) requiring to mention of the "public purpose" for which the land was acquired it was stated for "housing scheme of Housing Board". In column (3) it was stated that the plan of the and might be inspected in the office of the Collector. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, inter alia, challenging the notification under Section 4 on the ground that it was vague and invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act. The High Court allowed the petition. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave application holding that the impugned notification was vitiated on account of being vague and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of the Act. But, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable on facts. We have already noted that the premises in question, or to speak to more specifically, the specific area of the ground floor of the premises, sought to be requisitioned through the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not a new area for the purpose of running a ration office by the respondents. Admittedly, a ration office was being run for the last 30 years. So, merely, because of the fact that the area proposed to be requisitioned fell short of the total area of the ground floor, cannot in our considered opinion make the notification invalid due to such notification being vague." 10. That apart unlike the case decided by the Apex Court, the public purpose which has been mentioned in the notification is not at all yague. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the present appeal has got no merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Meena, J. : I agree.