JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Shri S.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri D.V. Jaiswal and Shri Siddharth Verma for the petitioner. Shri Jafar Naiyer, Addl. Advocate General appears for the State respondents. Shri Rajiv Gupta appears for the District Judge, Allahabad. 2. The writ petitions are the oldest land acquisition matters pending in the High Court. Both the writ petitions were dismissed for want of prosecution on 7.12.2009. We had found that the counsels for the petitioners were avoiding the hearing for more than 20 years for one reason or another. They sent repeated illness slips. The land was acquired for extension of the Civil Court building of the Judgeship at Allahabad. The possession of the land was taken on 22.9.1986 by a possession certificate signed by Shri Umeshwar Pandey, the then Addl. District Judge, Allahabad, who was later on elevated to the High Court. The petitioners, however, re-entered and continued in possession illegally throughout the pendency of the writ petitions. Inspite of request made by successive District Judges to expedite the hearing, the matter was not listed, and that whenever it was listed, it was got adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was enjoying the possession purportedly in contravention of the order of the status quo dated 23.9.1986 and using the premises for both residential and commercial purposes. 3. Shri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner undertook that he will be arguing the matter without seeking any further adjournment, on which we permitted him to address the arguments on merits. The matter was heard on merits. Both the writ petitions were heard at length on 9.12.2010 and that the judgment was reserved. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we find it appropriate to recall our order dated 7.12.2009 and to decide the writ petitions on merits. 5. The restoration applications are allowed. The orders dated 7.12.2009 are recalled. The matter was nominated by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 2.8.2010, to be heard by us. 6. Shri Daud Ahmad, the petitioner in both the writ petitions died on 10.3.1999, leaving behind Shri Gufran Ahmad and Smt. Khairunnisa as son and widow. The substitution application dated 25.5.1999 was allowed on 29.1.2004. 7. The orders dated 7.12.2009 are recalled. The matter was nominated by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 2.8.2010, to be heard by us. 6. Shri Daud Ahmad, the petitioner in both the writ petitions died on 10.3.1999, leaving behind Shri Gufran Ahmad and Smt. Khairunnisa as son and widow. The substitution application dated 25.5.1999 was allowed on 29.1.2004. 7. In Writ Petition No. 12007 of 1981 late Daud Ahmad had prayed for directions to quash the notification dated 24.6.1978 and the notification dated 22.6.1981 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively and for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned notifications. In Writ Petition No. 16608 of 1986 late Daud Ahmad had by the first prayer prayed for same reliefs, namely, to quash the notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 24.6.1978 and 22.6.1981. He has further prayed for quashing the award dated 28.5.1986 and the notice dated 12.6.1986, and for directions not to dispossess him, from the disputed land in acquisition proceedings by the aforesaid notifications, award and notice. 8. The land covered by the notifications adjoins the Civil Court campus towards north of the judgeship at Allahabad. It was proposed and acquired for expansion of the Civil Court building, which is surrounded from the remaining three sides by buildings and main road and has no further space for expansion. 9. Brief facts giving rise to these two writ petitions are that the petitioner claims to be owner of the land and building (two kothies) situate on Plot No. 361 and plot No. 406 in Mauja Beli Uprehar, Pargana Chail, Distt. Allahabad. The plots were part of large area of land acquired by the State Government under the provisions of Town Improvement Act, 1916, for the purposes of Katra Housing Scheme in the year 1926. The land was sold by Allahabad Improvement Trust to different persons. According to the petitioner the total area of Plot No. 406 was 19 bigha and 7 biswas and total area of Plot No. 361 was 12 bigha and 1 biswa. On 8.3.1926 the grand father of the petitioner purchased a plot through registered sale deed from Allahabad Improvement Trust, Allahabad. He purchased two more plots through registered sale-deed dated 18.3.1926 and 20.7.1927. On 8.3.1926 the grand father of the petitioner purchased a plot through registered sale deed from Allahabad Improvement Trust, Allahabad. He purchased two more plots through registered sale-deed dated 18.3.1926 and 20.7.1927. In para 6 of the writ petition it is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deeds the petitioner had purchased total area of 18703 sq. yards of land. All the plots were contiguous to each other and are now situate in one common compound. The grand father of the petitioner constructed two residential bungalows namely 1-A Beli Road and 1/3-C Beli Road, Allahabad with motor garages, godowns, servant quarters, tube-well and pucca well and had planted trees. On the death of his grand-father in the year 1963 the petitioner became the owner as his father had pre-deceased him. 10. The House No. 1-A Beli road was under the tenancy of Shri V.G. Oak, the then District Judge, Allahabad. He was elevated to the High Court and retired as Chief Justice of the High Court. He left Allahabad in May 1971. The bungalow No. 1/3-C, Beli Road, Allahabad was let out to the District Judge and was occupied by the District Judge, Allahabad for his residence. The then District Judge Shri S. Mallick permitted the bungalow to be occupied by two Addl. District Judges. It is stated in paras 11 and 12 that they did not pay rent on which the petitioner had to file the civil suit for recovery of rent and for eviction on the ground of sub-letting. The suit was compromised on the intervention of some lawyers and officers of the District Court. 11. It is further stated in para 13 that when Shri Rikheswari Prasad was posted as District Judge, Allahabad, he got the accommodation allotted to him and after his transfer Mr. Justice B.C. Jauhari, who was then posted as District Judge, Allahabad got the accommodation allotted to him from the Rent Control & Eviction Officer. 12. On 24.6.1978 a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued proposing to acquire the land. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A alleging that the entire acquisition proceedings were mala fide and were initiated on account of prejudice and bias of the judicial officers. 12. On 24.6.1978 a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued proposing to acquire the land. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A alleging that the entire acquisition proceedings were mala fide and were initiated on account of prejudice and bias of the judicial officers. He stated that Civil Court has sufficient land within the compound and the construction of the officers’ building and land was not required by the Civil Court. On 9th October, 1978 the petitioner filed supplementary objections under Section 5-A alleging that the entire proceedings were mala fide and arbitrary and that no land could be acquired by the Civil Court. The Civil Court had sufficient land and did not require more land. On 15th November, 1978 the petitioner moved an application before the Land Acquisition Officer requesting him one month’s time to file necessary papers. He filed another application praying that the Land Acquisition Officer may direct the Civil Court to disclose the facts and furnish the necessary information about the land to be acquired by it. It was also stated by the petitioner that there was a scheme for construction of multi-storied building on the land, where old Civil Court building stood and was destroyed in a fire incident. The application was filed on 26.2.1979. The foundation stone of multistory was laid by the then Chief Justice on 7.3.1981 after which construction of new Civil Court building started. 13. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.9.1981 under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act for taking possession. In paras 25 to 34 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner moved an application on 10.2.1981 that the notification is vague and that the land proposed is not identifiable. No opportunity was given by the Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad to the petitioner to substantiate his case. It is stated by the petitioner that on 20th December, 1980 the District Judge sent a letter to the District Magistrate, Allahabad stating that he should send a copy of the map and measurements of the land proposed to be acquired. It was also requested that steps should be taken for issuing notification immediately. The District Magistrate by his letter dated 16.2.1981 informed the District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, that the map sent alongwith the letter did not describe the correct measurement. It was also requested that steps should be taken for issuing notification immediately. The District Magistrate by his letter dated 16.2.1981 informed the District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad, that the map sent alongwith the letter did not describe the correct measurement. It is alleged in para 29 that although under proposals it was stated that about 2.98 acres of land is to be acquired, but from the map, which was sent by the District Judge, the area proposed to be acquired is more than proposal for acquisition. The State Government, thereafter, issued notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 22.6.1981. 14. In Writ Petition No. 12007 of 1981 the petitioner has challenged the notification on the grounds namely that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity as required under Section 5-A of the Act and no enquiry was held under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner was entitled to a notice and opportunity to contest the matter and to participate in the enquiry; the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act provided for acquisition of land and not the building; the notification should have expressly stated that land alongwith building has been required; the notification is vague and bad in law and that in any case the purpose for acquisition has exhausted with the new scheme of construction of Civil Court building. 15. In Writ Petition No. 16608 of 1986 the petitioner has again challenged the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, and also the award dated 28.5.1986. He has also challenged notice dated 12.6.1986 served upon him on 17.9.1986 and has prayed that he should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. Apart from reiterating the facts as they have been stated in the earlier writ petitioner the petitioner stated that by letter dated 20.12.1980 the District Judge, Allahabad replied to the letter of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 30.4.1980 for preparation of another map of the land proposed to be acquired. The map was sought to be amended and consequently another map was prepared prior to the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The declaration under Section 6 by notification dated 22.6.1981 described the land in red ink in the second map. It is stated that the petitioner inspected the records and found that the second map was prepared after notification under Section 4 and before declaration under Section 6. The declaration under Section 6 by notification dated 22.6.1981 described the land in red ink in the second map. It is stated that the petitioner inspected the records and found that the second map was prepared after notification under Section 4 and before declaration under Section 6. The petitioner filed objections under Section 9 of the Act on 23.3.1983 stating that he was participating in the proceedings without prejudice to his rights. It appears that an enquiry was made by the then District Magistrate from the Allahabad Development Authority regarding bungalows having Municipal No. 1-A and 1/3-C, Beli Road, Allahabad to find out, as to whether the bungalows were situated on Nazul land or on Government State land. The Vice-Chairman of Allahabad Development Authority by his letter dated 17.3.1989 informed the District Magistrate that the land was neither Nazul Land nor the Government State land. It was sold by the Allahabad Improvement Trust for Katra Housing scheme to Shri Hafiz Saadat Ali (the grand father of late Shri Daud Ahmad, the petitioner) in 1926 and was free hold land. From the records it is stated in para 16 that the enquiry was made regarding market value of the land by D.O. letter dated 27.5.1983 with reference to several sale deeds informing that the lowest rate of land shown in the sale deeds is Rs. 100 and on that basis the compensation was calculated. The Land Acquisition Officer after the publication of the notification under Section 6 was required to mark the land to be acquired for correct measurements under Section 8 of the Act. He did not comply with the provisions of Section 8 and proceeded under Section 9 to give award under Section 11. The award dated 28.5.1986 was prepared illegally and without jurisdiction as there was no other claimant except the petitioner. The matter was referred to the District Judge under sub-section (2) of Section 31 for determining the compensation as to whether it was to be paid to the petitioner alone or to other persons, whereas it was never disputed that the land was free hold land sold by Allahabad Improvement Trust to the petitioner’s grand father. It is further stated in the writ petition that the land was covered under Master Plan for the purposes of residence, whereas it was proposed to be acquired for Civil Court building. It is further stated in the writ petition that the land was covered under Master Plan for the purposes of residence, whereas it was proposed to be acquired for Civil Court building. The land use in the notification was thus contrary to the Master Plan prepared under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. 16. It is contended that after the award dated 28.5.1986 the petitioner moved an application in the earlier writ petition to stay the dispossession and no notice for taking possession was served upon the petitioner. The notice dated 19.6.1986 was not served upon the petitioner. He prayed for protection of his possession. 17. By interim order dated 22.9.1986 a Division Bench of this Court directed that the matter be taken up in chambers on the next day. In the meantime, the petitioner, if not already dispossessed shall not be evicted from the disputed property in pursuance to the land acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution thrice and was restored. 18. In pursuance to the notification under Sections 4 and 6 dated 15.7.1978 and 22.8.1981 and the award dated 28.5.1986 the notice under Section 9 was issued and the possession was taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, was delivered to the Court on 22.9.1986. The possession certificate dated 22.9.1986 was signed by Shri Umeshwar Pandey, the then Addl. District Judge, Allahabad, which was letter on elevated to the High Court. The interim order was passed on the same day on 22.9.1986, when the possession was taken. The interim order had clarified that if the petitioner has already not been dispossessed, he shall not be dispossessed. The interim order, therefore, was of no effect as the possession was taken on the same day. It appears that taking advantage of the doubt, the petitioner continued in possession. The petitioner continued in possession and remained in possession upto 7.12.2009, when the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution and thereafter the possession was taken by the District Judge, Allahabad back from him. The petitioner had re-entered the possession on 22.9.1986 in complete disobedience of the order passed by the Court and continued to remain in occupation illegally for 23 years. 19. The petitioner had re-entered the possession on 22.9.1986 in complete disobedience of the order passed by the Court and continued to remain in occupation illegally for 23 years. 19. Shri S.K. Verma appearing for the petitioner submits that the grand-father of the petitioner had purchased the property by sale-deeds dated 18.3.1926, 13.7.1926 and 20.7.1927 from the Improvement Trust of Allahabad of land existing on Plot Nos. 361 and 406 Village Beli Uprehar, Pargana and Tehsil Chail, Distt. Allahabad. The plot No. 361 had a total area of 12 bigha 1 biswa (6.89 acres approximately) and plot No. 406 has area of 19 bigha and 7 biswas (11 acres approximately). A small portion of the land in these plots was purchased by the petitioner’s grand father, and had built two bungalow numbered as 1-A Beli Road, Allahabad and 1/3-C Beli Road Allahabad. The bungalow No. 1-A was requisitioned by Collector, Allahabad on 11.7.1971. The Supreme Court vide its judgment reported in AIR 1972 SC 896 directed the bungalow to be returned to the petitioner. Shri Verma submits that in the notification under Section 4, total acquired area was mentioned as 3.03 acres. The notification described the acquired plots as Plot No. 361 area 2.98 acres and that Plot No. 406 area 0.05 acres. There was no map attached to the notification. The note appended to the notification stated that the plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Allahabad. Relying upon State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593 he submits that where the scheme specified only locality, there may be survey and drawing of the maps of the land. The objections can be filed in respect of particular land in the locality. Where land is not particularised but only locality is mentioned, the remaining non-particularised area, which is not declared under Section 6 automatically stands released. The Scheme of the Act is that first a notification under Section 4 (1) is published followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act. Where the land is not specified and cannot be identified, no effective objections can be filed on which notification becomes bad in law. 20. Shri Verma submits that objections under Section 5-A of the Act can only be filed by person, who has interest in land, which is sought to be acquired. Where the land is not specified and cannot be identified, no effective objections can be filed on which notification becomes bad in law. 20. Shri Verma submits that objections under Section 5-A of the Act can only be filed by person, who has interest in land, which is sought to be acquired. He states that there was complete uncertainty in regard to the land sought to be acquired and the second writ petition was required to be filed as no award could be given unless map was attached to the notification. He submits that the District Magistrate by letter dated 17.1.1981 gave a map asking the District Judge to mark the land sought to be acquired. The District Judge marked the land and had put his seal. This very map has been filed in the counter affidavit. The Collector had, therefore, not mapped out exact land, which was sought to be acquired and that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner the report was prepared hurriedly to cause notification under Section 6. Shri Verma submits that onus of proving legality of the notification is upon the State. Since the Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation, the State has proved to the hilt that acquisition was done in accordance with law. There are several irregularities in acquiring the land, in as much as the land was not demarcated at the time of issuing the notification under Section 4. The notification was entirely vague and that objections under Section 5-A were decided without hearing and without taking any decision on it. No personal hearing was given. The petitioner as interested person was totally unaware of the land sought to be acquired. There is no difference in notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and that until the areas sought to be acquired is determined by the appropriate government, the notification under Section 6 and notice under Section 9 could not be issued. He submits that built up area cannot be acquired vide 1998 (4) JT 601, 2009 (1) UPLBEC 45, and 92 Supp. (2) SCC 136. 21. Shri Verma submits that the Court hearing the matter had earlier directed the District Judge to find out if the land is still required after the construction of multi-storied building and thereafter the Division Bench had directed the Advocate General to give a report. The Addl. (2) SCC 136. 21. Shri Verma submits that the Court hearing the matter had earlier directed the District Judge to find out if the land is still required after the construction of multi-storied building and thereafter the Division Bench had directed the Advocate General to give a report. The Addl. Advocate General had sent a letter to the District Magistrate stating that there was some difference in respect of area in the maps on the basis of which the notifications were prepared. A map was prepared by Executive Engineer in which the area differed from the areas, which was sought to be acquired. 22. Shri S.K. Verma has also relied upon the judgments of this High Court in AIR 1970 Alld. 414 (FB); 1968 ALJ 487; AIR 1971 SC 306 and 832 and (2005) 13 SCC 682 . 23. The record was summoned. We gave an opportunity to learned counsel for the petitioner to inspect the record. It is admitted that the counsels appearing for the petitioners have examined the original records. They, however, did not choose to rely upon any document available on record, and have preferred to make arguments on legal issues on the vagueness of the notification, difference in the areas of the plots, the area acquired and other legal issues. 24. Shri Jafar Naiyer, Addl. Advocate General has appeared for the State respondents. He relies upon contents of the affidavit of Shri Misri Lal, clerk in the Land Acquisition Office, Allahabad and the records. He submits that notification under Section 4 was published on 24.6.1978. A map was kept in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer showing the demarcated land proposed to be acquired for public inspection. A photocopy of the map is annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure No. 1. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and contested the matter. He did not raise any objections about vagueness of the measurements of the land. Infact he took no objections regarding identity of the land at all and did not raise any such objections under Section 5A of the Act. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad considered the objections dated 16.10.1978 and after hearing him rejected the objections by his order annexed as Anneuxre CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. Infact he took no objections regarding identity of the land at all and did not raise any such objections under Section 5A of the Act. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad considered the objections dated 16.10.1978 and after hearing him rejected the objections by his order annexed as Anneuxre CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. The District Judge, thereafter, wrote a letter to the District Magistrate giving a map in which the details of the boundaries, measurements including measurements of the boundaries of the area acquired was given in detail and these boundaries included the plots of the petitioner, which are part of the plot Nos. 361 and 406. When the notification under Section 6 was made, the petitioner filed a writ petition. In the counter affidavit of Shri Ram Prasad Dubey, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad to the first writ petition the main ground taken by the petitioner was that the acquisition is vitiated on mala fides. He had stated that the land was acquired out of vengeance and on account of fact that high officials are interested in acquiring the property. In the second supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner in para 6, he for the first time raised arguments with regard to location and area of the land. The objections taken by the petitioner that there were no measurements, dimensions and locations were entirely wrong. The Land Acquisition Clerk in his affidavit and reply to the supplementary counter affidavit had clearly stated that the notifications are quite legal and fully complied with the requirement of law. The supplementary affidavit of Shri N.C. Goyal, the then Addl. District Judge were also filed in reply in which it was clearly stated that the land was identifiable and that the complete area of the plots was mentioned. 25. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of Shri Misri Lal that on 22.9.1986 as the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 3.6.1986 had permitted the answering respondents to take possession with certain condition namely that the bungalow will not be demolished. The possession of plot Nos. 361 and 406 was taken including residential building except one outhouse and was handed over to the District Judge, Allahabad. The possession of plot Nos. 361 and 406 was taken including residential building except one outhouse and was handed over to the District Judge, Allahabad. The proceedings of delivery of possession started in the day hours at about 2.45 p.m., but it was stopped, when the Court’s order was received by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the evening by one Shri D.V. Jaiswal. 26. In para 9 of the counter-affidavit of Shri Misri Lal it is stated that the petitioner had not taken any objection with regard to vagueness or uncertainty of the identification and area of the land in the notification. Infact he had no doubt about it at all, when the notifications were published, and therefore, he did not inspect the records for verifying the locations and measurements. His objections were confined to mala fides, which were heard and decided. 27. We have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Before proceeding to decide the case we may observe that the building of Civil Court at Allahabad is grossly insufficient both for the Courts as well as the chambers of the lawyers. Inspite of constructions of multi-storied building the Civil Court has no space at all to take care of the requirements of the growing numbers of Courts, and for litigants and lawyers. There is hardly any space left in the Civil Court to expand either horizontally or vertically. During day time it is difficult to walk in the campus. The then District Judge had made a request to the High Court on which the request was made to the State Government through the District Magistrate to acquire the only land available, towards north of the Court campus. The record shows that on the request of the District Judge dated 25.5.1978 alongwith copy of the map to Shri Bhure Lal, the District Magistrate, Allahabad vide his letter dated 26th June, 1978, a request was made to acquire the land for extension of the Civil Court. After detailed correspondence in which the District Magistrate made enquiries about the area of the land, proposals were forwarded alongwith proposed map for acquisition of the land. The notification under Section 4, not only describes the locality but also plot numbers and the area for acquisition of the land. After detailed correspondence in which the District Magistrate made enquiries about the area of the land, proposals were forwarded alongwith proposed map for acquisition of the land. The notification under Section 4, not only describes the locality but also plot numbers and the area for acquisition of the land. The site plan for the land proposed to be acquired were available in the office of the District Magistrate. No effort was made to inspect site plan. In the objections under Section 5-A the petitioner did not take any objections with regard to identification or area of the land. 28. The petitioner did not take any objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer also in proceedings for preparation of award about the locality, identity and measurements of the land. An amount of Rs. 18,96,474/- was proposed to be paid as compensation on the market value of the land, the constructions, trees etc. The Registrar of the High Court requested the State Government for making the amount available to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 29. The petitioner had filed his objections dated 9.10.1978 under Section 5-A of the Act on 16.10.1978. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit of Shri Ram Prasad Dubey, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad filed in Writ Petition No. 12007 of 1981 it is stated that the petitioner was given 5.11.1978 for hearing. On 6.11.1978 the petitioner moved application requesting for one month’s time for filing papers. The application was allowed and 15.11.1978, was fixed for hearing. the petitioner did not filed papers on 15.11.1978 and again moved an application on which he was again allowed time. He filed papers on 30.11.1978 with an application seeking clarification from Civil Court. On 19.12.1978 the petitioner moved an application for adjournment of hearing on the ground that his counsel has some personal work and is unable to take the case. The application was allowed and 20.12.1978 was fixed. On 26.2.1979 the District Judge, Allahabad filed his cross-objections, a copy of which was given to the petitioner. On 12.3.1979 the petitioner filed his reply to the cross-objections of the District Judge. He filed an application on 17.3.1979, and lastly filed an application alongwith objections on 10.2.1981. The petitioner was thus given full and adequate opportunity, to submit his objections, which were not only heard but were also decided. On 12.3.1979 the petitioner filed his reply to the cross-objections of the District Judge. He filed an application on 17.3.1979, and lastly filed an application alongwith objections on 10.2.1981. The petitioner was thus given full and adequate opportunity, to submit his objections, which were not only heard but were also decided. It was virtually a contest on the question of mala fides and for the need to acquire the land between the petitioner and the then District Judge. In his objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act and in reply to the cross-objections the petitioner did not raise any dispute with regard to identity of the land and the measurements. His entire objections were confined to the mala fides and the need set up by the District Judge for additional land for expansion of Civil Courts. 30. From the maps annexed to the counter-affidavit prepared for acquisition of the land in Araji No. 361 and 406 Village Beli Uprehar, Pargana and Tehsil Chail, Allahabad, the area sought to be acquired was delineated with red colour. The area of the land was measured in Latthas and was demarcated in biswas. In Plot No. 361, 2.98 acres and in plot No. 406,0.05 acres land was proposed and was notified to be acquired. 31. During the course of arguments Shri S.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate did not press the grounds of mala fides in acquisition of the land and building. His arguments were mainly confined to the vagueness of the particulars of land sought to be acquired in the impugned notification and further that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. No order was passed under Section 5-A before issuing notification under Section 6. He has also faintly raised submissions that the building with constructions cannot be acquired and that only vacant land can be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 32. Shri S.K. Verma has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593 ; Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. 32. Shri S.K. Verma has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593 ; Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Safi, (1992) 2 SCC 168 ; Kanpur Development Authority v. Mahaveer Sahay Awas Samiti Ltd. and others, (2005) 10 SCC 320 ; Daulat Ram Surana v. First Land Acquisition Collector and others, (2007) 1 SCC 641 ; and Full Bench decision of this Court in Bahori Lal v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1970 All 414 , in support of his submissions that where the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act suffers from ambiguity, indefiniteness and vagueness, the acquisition becomes illegal, and cannot be acted upon to acquire the land. 33. In State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, (supra) the Supreme Court held that Section 4 (1) is not a kind of reservoir from which the government may from time to time draw out the land and make successive declarations under Section 6. The scheme of the Act shows that Sections 4, 5A and 6 prescribes that first there is notification under Section 4 (1) followed by notification under Section 6. If the notification under Section 6 particularised the area out of area in the locality specified in the notification under Section 4 (1), the remaining area stands automatically excluded. In M.P. Housing Board (Supra) it was held by the Supreme Court, that the object of issuing notification under Section 4 is first to make a public pronouncement by the Government and public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land is needed for is likely to be needed for public purpose. The notification has to be published in the locality, from which the persons likely to be affected get notice from such notification. The full description of the locality, where the land is situate, enables the interested person to know as to which land is being acquired. If the notification does not give the khasra numbers and describes the locality, which is spread over a large area, divided into several municipal wards, the description will be insufficient. In the case decided by the Supreme Court the notification under Section 4 merely mentioned Mandsaur, as the area, which was spread over 25 kms. and from which no one could have made out the land, which was sought to be acquired. 34. In the case decided by the Supreme Court the notification under Section 4 merely mentioned Mandsaur, as the area, which was spread over 25 kms. and from which no one could have made out the land, which was sought to be acquired. 34. In Kanpur Development Authority (Supra) a vast extent of land was proposed to be acquired for development of New Kanpur City by the Kanpur Development Authority. The High Court quashed the notification on the ground that no opportunity was given to the respondents in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The Supreme Court after examining the notification held that notification under Section 4 (1) of the act suffers from incurable irregularity such as total vagueness in regard to the property to be acquired. 35. In Daulat Singh Surana (Supra) the Supreme Court held in para 72 that ambiguity, indefiniteness and vagueness of public purpose, are usual grounds on which notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act are assailed. 36. In Bahori Lal (Supra) the Full Bench of this Court held that a note in the notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act, to the effect that site plan of the land proposed to be acquired is available for inspection int he office of the Land Acquisition Officer, is of no consequence and cannot be accepted as valid substitute for sufficient description of the land and the locality in which it is situate. The High Court, however, in the same paragraph held that if independently of such a note, description of the locality in which land is situate can be held to be sufficient in a particular case, the notification will be valid. 37. From the aforesaid cases, we find that total vagueness and indefiniteness of the description of the land in the notification under Section 4 (1) can be a ground to interfere with the acquisition as in such case the interested person will not get proper notice for acquisition and for filing objections. In the present case, the land is not only described with the name of locality, plot (khasra) number, and the area but was also clearly understood by Late Shri Daud Khan, who filed objections without taking any plea that land is not identifiable. In the present case, the land is not only described with the name of locality, plot (khasra) number, and the area but was also clearly understood by Late Shri Daud Khan, who filed objections without taking any plea that land is not identifiable. The note appended to the notification provided that the plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Allahabad. The purpose for acquisition in the notification was given as “for construction of Civil Court building in Distt. Allahabad”. The description was, therefore, full and complete and that the petitioner did not any stage, had a doubt about the identity of the land, which was sought to be acquired. His objections were mostly confined to mala fides, and the need for acquisition. He never raised any objections with regard to any doubts over the identification of land and as such the notifications cannot be said to be vague or indefinite in providing proper description of the land. As stated above, although main grounds on which objections and first writ petition was filed was mala fides, during the course of arguments, mala fides were not pressed nor do we find that any case for mala fide was made out in as much as that the land adjoins Civil Court building, which is surrounded on two sides by building and on the third side by road. There is no scope for expansion of the Civil Court premise, which is virtually bursting at the seams. The District Judge assessed the need much in advance, and made a request to the State Government to acquire the land. It is unfortunate that for last 24 years the District Court has not been able to expand due to the unlawful occupation of the petitioner. 38. Shri S.K. Verma faintly suggested that the land with construction cannot be acquired under the act. He has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash and others v. State of U.P., JT 1998 (4) SC 601, and in Dharm Pal v. State of Haryana, 2009 (1) UPLBEC (SC) 45. In both these decisions, no such principle of law as suggested by Shri S.K. Verma was laid down. He has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash and others v. State of U.P., JT 1998 (4) SC 601, and in Dharm Pal v. State of Haryana, 2009 (1) UPLBEC (SC) 45. In both these decisions, no such principle of law as suggested by Shri S.K. Verma was laid down. In Om Prakash (Supra) the Supreme Court found that main grievance of the appellants centered around question whether their lands with abadi could be acquired in the light of the State policy for not acquiring such lands. The Court permitted the petitioner to raise their grievance under Section 48, rather than Section 5-A. In the subsequent decision the State Government did not accept the plea of exemption on the ground of existence of sporadic constructions on the vast land acquired by notifications. The Supreme Court finally dismissed the challenge. 39. In Dharm Pal v. State of Haryana, (Supra) the only ground pressed before the Supreme Court was that the constructions made by the appellants were acquired, whereas similar kind of construction made with regard to other similarly situate persons were left out. The Supreme Court gave directions to the Secretary, Urban Estates Department, State of Haryana to consider the objections. In the present case only the petitioner’s land with construction has been acquired for expansion of Civil Court. The petitioner has not set up only policy of the State Government nor a case of discrimination in acquiring the land with constructions. In Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 565 , the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is no bar in the act to acquire the land with constructions. The petitioner will be entitled to get market value of the construction and trees for which award has already been prepared on 28.5.1986. 40. To sum up the case, we find that on the request of the District Judge, Allahabad dated 25.5.1978 the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated by the State Government. The notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act was made on 24.6.1978 and the notifications under Section 6 (1) of the Act was made on 22.6.1981 acquiring the land in Village Beli Uprehar, Pargana and Tehsil Chail Distt. The notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act was made on 24.6.1978 and the notifications under Section 6 (1) of the Act was made on 22.6.1981 acquiring the land in Village Beli Uprehar, Pargana and Tehsil Chail Distt. Allahabad in Khata No. 361 area 2.98 acres and Khata No. 406 area 0.05 acres, and in this manner total area of 0.03 acres in two plots adjacent to Civil Court campus, earlier in possession of the then Chief Justice and the District Judge as his residence, was acquired for expansion of Civil Court building. A public notice under Section 9 was issued after the notification under Section 6 on 19.6.1981. The objections were filed under Section 5A by Late Shri Daud Ahmed on 16.10.1978. He took several adjournments and filed papers. He also filed reply to cross-objections filed by the District Judge and was given opportunity of hearing. The objections were only confined to mala fides and the need of Civil Court for expansion. The objections were decided and rejected. The petitioner did not produce any document of title in support of his objections. A case under the Urban Land Ceiling was pending against him on which his title over the entire land was found by the Collector to be doubtful and reference was also forwarded to the District Judge, Allahabad under Section 31 (2) of the Act. An award for acquisition of the land, building and trees was declared on 28.5.1986 for Rs. 18,88,885.74. 41. From the record we also find that on 3.6.1986 this Court had passed an order in Writ Petition No. 12007 of 1981, in which no justification was found to stay the acquisition of land but that on the apprehension of the petitioner that the building will be demolished during summer vacations, interim orders were passed that the building may not be demolished and trees may not be cut away. On 22.9.1986 physical possession was handed over to the District Judge under the signatures of Shri Umeshwar Pandey, the then Addl. District Judge, who was later on elevated to the High Court. An interim order was produced in the evening of the same day to the effect that if possession has not been taken, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. On 22.9.1986 physical possession was handed over to the District Judge under the signatures of Shri Umeshwar Pandey, the then Addl. District Judge, who was later on elevated to the High Court. An interim order was produced in the evening of the same day to the effect that if possession has not been taken, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. The petitioner took advantage of confusion on account of interim order, and was in possession of the land throughout upto 7.12.2009 after which possession was taken by the District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought repeated adjournments and cleverly delayed hearing for 24 years within which the writ petition was dismissed thrice and was restored on personal grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. Finally on 7.12.2009 the writ petitions were dismissed for want of prosecution, and were heard on the undertaking of the Senior Counsel that he will not seek any adjournment. 42. Learned Addl. Advocate General informed the Court that possession of the entire land, building and trees and whatever exists on the land was finally taken after the writ petitions were dismissed for want of prosecution on 7.12.2009 and that the District Judge, Allahabad is in physical possession of the entire land and building. 43. On the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the acquisition of the land, for urgent public purpose namely expansion of the Civil Court, which urgently requires the land for constructions of the Court rooms. No other land is available in the vicinity of the Civil Court, Allahabad, for expansion. 44. Before parting with the case, we may observe that Late Shri Hafiz Saadat Ali, the grand-father of the petitioner and after him the petitioner have been in physical occupation of the land until writ petitions were finally dismissed for want of prosecution on 7.12.2009. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued on 24.6.1978 and 22.6.1981 and that award was declared on 28.5.1986. The petitioner will, therefore, not be entitled to any interest on the compensation worked out by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 45. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. ——————