Writ jurisdiction and acquisition notice: disputed facts alone do not bar review, and later purchasers may challenge vague notifications.

A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be rejected merely because some issues involve disputed facts; the court may decline only where the controversy is too complex for writ adjudication or requires oral evidence. On the pleadings, the material was largely documentary, so dismissal in limine on that ground was not justified. In acquisition matters, a purchaser after a Section 4 notification is not barred from challenging the notification where it is alleged to be vague and to fail to identify the land with reasonable certainty, because adequate notice and an opportunity to object under Section 5A remain essential unless validly dispensed with under Section 17(4).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact. (ii) Whether purchasers of land after the Section 4 notification were precluded from challenging the validity of the acquisition notification and the absence of adequate notice of the land proposed to be acquired.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: A petition under Article 226 may raise questions of both fact and law. The existence of factual does not by itself bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The High Court may decline to go into a petition where the dispute is so complex that oral evidence is necessary or where other sound judicial reasons make writ adjudication inappropriate, but it cannot refuse to entertain the petition merely on a general statement that disputed facts are involved. On the pleadings, most allegations were supported by documentary material and only limited factual controversy appeared to remain.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition in limine on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether purchasers of land after the Section 4 notification were precluded from challenging the validity of the acquisition notification and the absence of adequate notice of the land proposed to be acquired.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires publication of a notification giving sufficient notice that the land is intended to be acquired, and the owners must have an opportunity to object under Section 5A unless that inquiry is dispensed with under Section 17(4). Where the notification is vague and does not identify with reasonable certainty the land proposed to be acquired, the affected persons cannot be said to have been given due notice. The mere fact that the appellants purchased the land after the notification did not extinguish their right to question a notification that was alleged to be vague and inapplicable to their plots.

Conclusion: The appellants were not barred from challenging the notification merely because they purchased the land after its issuance.

Final Conclusion: The matter required adjudication on merits by the High Court, and the dismissal in limine could not stand; the proceeding was restored for decision according to law after further pleadings and evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition cannot be rejected merely because some facts are disputed, and a purchaser of land is not barred from challenging a vague acquisition notification that fails to give sufficient notice of the land intended to be acquired.

---