Judgment PRAKASH TATIA, J. ( 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.