The Land Acquisition Collector has no authority to change the Khasra numbers included in the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned with the acquisition of certain land situated in village Shakurpur and also in village Mandawli Fazalpur, Delhi, of which the petitioner is the Bhumidar. On 13th November, 1959, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued, a copy of which is Annexure a to the Writ Petition. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which were heard on 26th September, 1962 Thereafter, certain notifications under Section 6 of the Act were issued and later on notices under Sections 9 and 10. Thereafter two separate awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector which covered the petitioner s land.

( 2 ) PART of the petitioner s land is covered by award No. 2179 which is Annexure e to the Petition and the rest by award No. 7 of 1969. One of the contentions of the petitioner before me is that his land which has been acquired by these two awards included built-up areas which were not covered by the notification under Section 4. Another objection is that the petitioner was never served with notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land involved in the acquisition. The petitioner also urges that the notification under Section 4 dated 13th November, 1959 is void and illegal because it does not specify the location of the land involved in the acquisition.

( 3 ) I shall first deal with the question whether the notification under Section 4 is void because it is vague. This notification covers a large area which is about 34070 acres. There is a detailed description at the end of the notification which divides the areas involved into blocks a to t and x ; a detailed description of each block is set out and it is also stated that there is a map showing the exact area which is available for inspection I am unable to determine from reading these details that the notification is vague or indefinite. It is impossible to hold that the notification is vague, unless it can be shown that there is some doubt about whether a particular plot of land is excluded from it or included in it. As I am only concerned with the petitioner s case, I am unable to find that it is possible for the petitioner to contend that his land was not covered by this notification As a matter of fact, the petitioner has filed objections to the notification under Section 4 and. therefore, could not have had any doubt regarding the applicability of the notification to the land in dispute. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that this notification is not vague. Mr. Bali on behalf of the petitioner has cited Smt. Gunwant Kaur v Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, in support of the proposition that inparticular circumstances a notification can be vague. In that case, a portion of Khasra No. 2330 in Bhatinda, was acquired and the Court was unable to identify the portion of that Khasra which was covered by the notification. It was held by the Court :-

" The notification merely set out the areas intended to be acquired out of Khasra No. 2030 but the location of the areas under Khasra No. 2030 could not thereby be ascertained. No plans demarcating the land to be acquired were published or made available to the owners of the land. "the Court then dealt with the particular facts of that case. In the present case the notification under Section 4 is extremely detailed and gives a full description of the area to be included within the operation of the notification. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that the notification is at all vague unless it can be shown that the petitioner was in any doubt as to the inclusion of his land within the scope of this notification. As he has filed objections and there are no facts showing any doubt, it is not possible to hold that the notification was vague.

( 4 ) IN the first paragraphs of the writ petition the petitioner has mentioned that he