- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard Sri O. K. Singh for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Pathak for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and also Sri A. K. Misra for respondent No. 7.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Board of Revenue dated 10-4-96 Annexure 16 to the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority did not take into consideration the house, well, and the trees standing on the land in dispute in dealing the valuation of the property. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Annexure 4 to the writ petition which is the objection filed by the petitioner before the Sub- Divisional Of ficer. In paragraph 6 of the said objection it is stated that the petitioner has a house and Mahuva and Kadam trees on the land in dispute. In my opinion this averment in paragraph 6 of the said objection is wholly vague. If theobjector was serious about his plea he should have given the details regarding the house and the trees. He should have specified whether it is a Pakka house or a Kachcha house, the number of rooms in the alleged house, the ap proximate value of the said house etc. Similarly, he should have mentioned the number of trees, whether they were full grown or not and approximate value of the trees. In paragraph 6 of the said objection no details at all have given and hence the averment in paragraph 6 of the objection cannot be taken seriously. The authorities rightly ignored this objection since it was absolutely vague. It appears that the petitioner also filed a review application before the Board of Revenue, but learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner will not press the review application.
(3.) THUS, there is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;