Land acquisition notices must clearly identify locality and public purpose; vague descriptions and later corrections cannot cure defects.

A land acquisition notification under Section 4 must identify the land and locality with reasonable clarity so affected owners can know whether their property is included and raise objections. Where the description is cryptic, lacks khasra numbers or precise locality, the defect is not cured by fuller particulars in the later Section 6 declaration; the notification is invalid and the acquisition is vitiated. The public purpose stated must also be sufficiently definite. A bare description such as "residential" was treated as too vague, and inconsistency between the request and the notifications indicated non-application of mind, rendering the acquisition bad in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was invalid for want of adequate particulars of the land and its locality. (ii) Whether the notification was vitiated because the public purpose stated for acquisition was vague and reflected non-application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was invalid for want of adequate particulars of the land and its locality.

Analysis: A notification initiating acquisition must clearly identify the land and the locality so that affected persons can know whether their property is included and may take objections. In the present case, the notification gave only a cryptic description, without khasra numbers or a precise locality, even though the area was extensive and divided into multiple municipal wards. The subsequent fuller particulars in the Section 6 declaration could not cure the defect in the initial notification.

Conclusion: The notification under Section 4(1) was invalid and the acquisition proceedings were vitiated.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification was vitiated because the public purpose stated for acquisition was vague and reflected non-application of mind.

Analysis: The public purpose stated as merely "residential" was held to be too indefinite to inform the landowners of the real object of acquisition. The record also showed inconsistency between the Board's request and the descriptions used in the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications, indicating casual handling and lack of application of mind by the acquiring authorities. A valid acquisition notice must particularise the purpose with sufficient clarity.

Conclusion: The notification was also invalid for vagueness of public purpose and non-application of mind.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition was upheld as bad in law and the challenge to the High Court's view failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A land acquisition notification under Section 4 must with reasonable clarity specify both the locality and the public purpose, and a defect in these mandatory particulars cannot be cured by a later declaration under Section 6.

---