The court held that the notification under Section 4 was not vague, the land was suitable for the purpose, there was no other suitable land available, and the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

LALIT, J.:- The petitioner in this petition has challenged the notification dated September 18, 1968 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner owns land bearing S.No. 13 situate at village Kondari. The two villages mouza Kondari and mouza Kondri Mijra Wakan adjoin each other. The present Gaothan for the two villages has a total area of 13 acres 22 gunthas. Village Kondari has a Gaothan of 7 acres 17 gunthas and in village Mouza Kondri Mira the Gaothhan extends over an area of 6 acres 5 gunthas. The notification under Section 4 of the Act proposed an acquisition from S.No. 13 belonging to the petitioner to the extent of an area of 3 acres and 11 gunthas. The purpose of acquisition of the said land was for extension of gaothan of village Kondari. A resolution was made by the Gram Panchayat of village Kondari and Village Kondri Majira Wakan whereby it was resolved that on account of floods in the year 1961, some houses in the village were inundated and, therefore, it was necessary to acquire an area of 5 acres from 'E' class land. In pursuance of this resolution, the aforesaid notification under Section 4 was issued. The petitioner was given a notice of this acquisition and she filed objections challenging the proposed acquisition. The grounds taken up to contest the acquisition were mainly that there was other 'E' class land available to the extent of about 800 acres and it was not necessary to acquire the land of the petitioner. The other objection was that the land belonging to the petitioner was not suitable for the purposes of extension of the gaothan as a nalla was flowing from the northern side of the petitioner's land. The petitioner also contended that the Gram Panchayat had proposed the acquisition of another land bearing S.No. 36, which showed that the petitioner's land, was not suitable for the purposes of acquisition. When the petitioner filed the objection, the petitioner was represented through an advocate. On behalf of the petitioner three witnesses were examined in support of her objection. On January 21, 1969, the L. A. O./S.D. O., made an order that a spot inspection will be made on February 5, 1969. The land was in fact inspected on February 4, 1969 when the brother of the petitioner was present. After this spot inspection, the L. A. O./S.D. O. made an order that the case be reported to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division. Subsequently the notification under Section 6 came to be issued. After the notification under Section 6 was issued, the petitioner has challenged this notification.

2. Mr. Chandurkar, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has canvassed that the notification under Section 4 suffers from vagueness. Mr. Chandurkar has invited our attention to the Schedule attached to this notification. He submits that in the Schedule, the description of the land proposed to be acquired has not been given. It is his contention that all that the Schedule says is that an approximate area of 3 acres 11 gunthas from S.No. 13 was proposed to be acquired. Relying on this description, Mr. Chandurkar argues that as the notification under Section 4 fails to properly specify and describe the exact property which was proposed to be acquired, the notification under Section 4 suffers from vagueness. It is not possible for us to accept this contention of Mr. Chandurkar. In the notification issued under Section 4, there is a clear mention that a plan of the lands proposed to be acquired was available for inspection at the office of the Land Acquisition Officer. A portion of the land which was proposed to be acquired was clearly delineated in this plan and the petitioner was given a full opportunity to find out as to which portion of S.No. 13 was notified for acquisition. Even if the notification under Section 4 does not give the description of the area of 3 acres and 11 gunthas, in view of the plan which was made available as for inspection, we feel that the land was properly specified and identified