The learned signie Judge, while allowing the writ petition, did not go into the first ground. He, however, accepte~ th~ second and third grounds and in the result quashed the notification. On the second ground, the learned Judge referred to the definition in section 2(7) of the Act, according to which refugee means any person who was a resident in any place forming part of Pakistan and wh~, on account of partition of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbance, has on or after the first day of March 194 7 migrated to any place in the U.P. and has been since residing there. It was observed that there was nothing to show that the displaced persons for whose benefit the land in question was being acquired had settled in Uttar Pradesh. Regarding the third ground, the learned Judge expressed the view that the notification under section 7 ( 1) of the Act required that the State Government should indicate in the notification that it had decided to acquire the land. As the word "decided" was not mentioned in the notification, the notification was held to be not in accordance with law. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court disagreed with the learned single Judge on both the grounds on which he had quashed the notification. It was held that the notification was substantially in ·accordance with section 7 ( 1) of the Act. It was further observed that the society for whose benefit the land was being acqqired consisted of refugees. Dealing with the first ground, namely, that the notification was vague as it did not properly specify the land sought to be acquired, the Division Bench held that all the necessary particulars in respect of the land sought to be acquired had been given. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed.
