SATISH CHANDRA, J.:- Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi has filed this appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge quashing the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and also the proceedings for the ejectment of the respondents taken by the Nagar Mahapalika under Sec. 129-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam.

2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30-11-1955. It related to an area of 0.905 acres in village Jaitpura in the district of Varanasi. Subsequently a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on January 19, 1956. It related to the same area and it mentioned that the land was sought to be acquired for widening of roads and shopping cum housing-centre. Provisions of Section 5-A were excluded. Subsequently proceedings for determination of the compensation payable to the owners were undertaken and an award was published by the Land Acquisition Officer on 6th April, 1957. Later on the Nagar Mahapalika took proceedings for the ejectment of the respondents under Section 129-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam on the ground that they were in unauthorised occupation of the land which had vested in the Nagar Mahapalika. At this stage the erstwhile owners of the land filed a writ petition in this Court. They challenged the validity of the notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act as also the proceedings under Sec. 129-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam.

3. A learned Single Judge held that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were vague inasmuch as they did not indicate the details of the buildings or municipal numbers of the plots sought to be acquired. Relying upon a Full Bench decision in Bahori Lal v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1970 All 414 (FB) the notifications were held to be void. It was also held that consequential proceedings for the ejectment of the respondents being based upon void acquisition proceedings were themselves illegal.

4. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition was barred by laches was repelled. In the result, the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act as well as the proceedings under Section 129-A of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhinivam were quashed.

5. Aggrieved, the Nagar Mahapalika has come up in appeal.

6. The notifications mention the name of the district. Pargana and Mauza in which the land sought to be acquired was situate. The name of the village mentioned is Jaitpura. The approximate area mentioned is 0.905 Acres and the purpose mentioned is for widening of road and shopping cum-housing centre. At the bottom, a note stated a plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector Banaras.

7. In Bahori Lal' case AIR 1970 All 414 the Full Bench emphasized that the notifications have to sufficiently identify the locality in which the land sought to be acquired is situate. In paragraphs 23 and 24 it was observed that "whether in a given case the locality has been sufficiently described or not may depend on the nature of land, the area of the land proposed to be acquired, the situation or the site of the land with reference to the part of the village or the city in which the land lies. If the land is situate in a very small village of which the area is very small, it may be that the description of the locality by the mention of the village may be sufficient. If however, the land is situate in a big village of which the area is considerable the mere mention of the village may not sufficiently answer the description of the locality. A mere note in the notification that the site plan is available for inspection cannot take the place of a sufficient description of the locality itself. Though the site plan may fix the identity of the land and its extent proposed to be acquired, it may not necessarily fix the locality itself."

8. In view of these observations it is clear that the Full Bench did not lay down that the notifications