MUKHTVAR BEGUM Vs. COMMISSIONER NAGPUR DIVISION NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 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 situates Kondari. The two villages Mouza Kondari and Mouza Kondri Mitra Wakanad join 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 Mitra the Gaothan 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 Kondri Maira Wakan whereby it was resolved that on account of floods in the year 1961. so houses in the villages were inundated an, 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 has 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 inspect on February 4, 1969 when the brother the petitioner was present After this spot inspection the 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 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 the schedule says is that an approximate area of 3 area 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 1 gunthas in view of the plan which was made available as for inspection. We fee that the land was properly specified and identified. As such it is not possible for us to accept this submission of Mr. Chandurkar that the notification under Section 4 was vague.

(3.) Mr. Chandurkar has then argued that the land which was sought to be acquired was not the best suited land for the purposes of extension of Gaothan. He submits that when the Gram Panchayat made by resolution. It resolved that another land bearing S. No. 36 should be acquired. It is not possible to accept even this submission of Mr. Chandurkar, It may be that the Gram Panchayat had resolved that S. No. 36 should be acquired. But the ultimate enquiry with regard to the proposed acquisition is to be made by the State Government. It may be that the acquisition proceedings were initiated on account of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat . However, for the purposes of the land acquisition Act, it is for the Government to decide which land is most suited for the acquisition and the decision of the State Government in the present case, on making an enquiry, has found that the land of the petitioner was best suited for the purposes of extension of Gaothan. We cannot, therefore, accept the submission of Mr.Chandurkar in this behalf.