WA 305/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY 1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 27.04.2007 passed in Rev iew Petition No.32 of 2007 as well as the order dated 24.02.2006 passed in WP(C) No.140(SH)/2003. 2. We have heard Sri SS Dey, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri N.Sa rma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya. 3. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed for the purpose of t he present Appeal may be enumerated hereunder: Challenging the acquisition of land made under the provisions of the Land Acquis ition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the petitioner had approach ed this Court by instituting a proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C) No.14 0(SH)/2003. The principal contentions advanced in the writ petition were to the effect that the acquisition was made without any notice to the Appellant and fur ther that the land was being used for religious purposes and there were other al ternative/suitable land available in the vicinity. It may be noticed, at this st age, that the acquisition was made for construction of Border Township at Dowki in the State of Meghalaya. 4. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 24.02.2006 by holding that notices, as required under the provisi ons of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued and published. The learned Single J udge, hearing the writ petition, also recorded the finding that the land belongi ng to the petitioner leased out and not used for religious purposes. The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding of suppression of relevant facts with rega rd to the date of representation filed by the Appellant against the acquisition. Above all, the writ petition filed by the Appellant was held to be inordinately delayed, the same having been filed on 19.05.2003, whereas possession of the la nd was taken over by the State Authorities on 04.02.2003. 5. Against the order dated 24.02.2006 dismissing the writ petition, the App ellant filed a Writ Appeal, i.e., WA No.62 of 2006, which, however, was withdraw n on 09.03.2007 with liberty to seek review of the order dated 24.02.2006 before the appropriate forum. Pursuant to the leave granted by the Court, the Review Petition in question was filed which having been dismissed by the order dated 27 .04.2007, this Appeal has been instituted against the order passed in the Review Petition as well as the original order dated 24.02.2006 passed in the Writ Peti tion, i.e., WP(C) No.140(SH)/2003. The contention raised in the Review Petition was to the effect that the boundaries of the land described in the Notification dated 23.05.2001 issued under Section 4 of the Act were different from those me ntioned in the declaration dated 30.11.2001 under Section 6 of the Act. In the said premises it was contended that the land eventually acquired was not include d in the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the acqu isition proceeding will be void. 6. The learned Single Judge, hearing the Review Petition, took note of the fact that though the Notification under Section 4 and the Declaration under Sect ion 6 of the Act were brought on record in the counter affidavit of the Responde nts to which the Appellant, as the Writ Petitioner, had filed a reply, the point sought to be urged in the Review Petition was not placed before the Court at an y earlier point of time. The learned Single Judge, therefore, felt disinclined to entertain the Review. Coupled with the fact that findings with regard to bou ndaries were already recorded in the order dated 24.02.2006, the learned Single Judge thought it proper to dismiss the Review Petition giving rise to the presen t Appeal. 7. At the hearing, Sri SS Dey, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner ha s contended that while it is correct that the issue with regard to the differenc e in the boundaries was not urged at any earlier point of time, the same is appa rent on the face of the records, i.e., the Notification under Section 4 and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In such a situation, according to the learned counsel, there cannot be any bar for consideration of the issue urged wi th regard to the boundaries of the land, in the exercise of the review power. T he earned counsel has also urged that the aforesaid issue goes to the root of th e matter and the Court may consider the same being a jurisdictional issue. Proce eding further, the learned counsel has contended in course of his oral argument that the land covered by the Notification under Section 4 of the Act did not inc lude the land of the Appellant whereas the land described in the Declaration und er Section 6 of the Act did include the Appellant’s land. 8. In view of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the orde r dated 27.04.2007 that the question of boundaries had been discussed and determ ined in the earlier order dated 24.02.2006, we had felt the necessity of looking into the pleadings contained in the writ petition and the counter affidavit of the Respondents. While in the writ petition, the Appellant, as the Writ Petition er, has urged lack of any notice to her before the acquisition was made, in repl y, the State in its counter affidavit had pointed out that pursuant to the Notif ication under Section 4 of the Act a large number of objections were received. All such objections were in respect of acquisition of the land of the objectors within the notified area which required an alteration of the boundaries. Accord ingly, a spot verification was carried out and on the basis of the report of suc h verification, consequential changes were made in the boundaries of the land in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Respondents have also filed an affidavit in the present Appeal wherein in paragraphs 8 and 9, it has been clear ly and categorically stated that while the boundaries of the land were altered, the land acquired measuring 27353 Sq. meters remained unaltered and it is the sa me area of land measuring 27353 Sq. meters that is covered by the Notification u nder Section 4 and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 9. As already noticed in the Review Petition it has not been specifically s tated that the land included in the Section 4 Notification and those included in Section 6 declaration are different. What has been contended in the review Peti tion is that because the boundaries are different, the land covered by the decla ration under Section 6 of the Act, that eventually came to be acquired, was not included in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, in the course of the oral arguments, an emphatic statement was made that the land included in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act did not include the land of the app ellant-petitioner whereas the land covered by the declaration under Section 6 di d include such land of the appellant-petitioner. The Court, therefore, proceeded on the basis that there is an inbuilt inference in the pleadings of the Review Petition that the two parcels of land covered by the Notification under Section 4 and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act are different. If the above is the stand of the Appellant, the counter affidavit of the Respondents in the App eal strike a distinctly discordant note in view of the averments made to the ef fect that it is only the boundaries of the land that had been changed whereas t he 27353 Sq. meters of land involved had all along remained the same. 10. Which of the above two versions is the correct version would require an elaborate consideration not only of the revenue and other connected records but any process of determination of the correct facts may also require appreciation of oral evidence of the parties. Such an exercise must not be entered into by t he Writ Court in the exercise of its high prerogative writ jurisdiction. We ar e, therefore, inclined to take the view that on the question raised by the Appel lant before us a highly disputed question on the core facts has occurred which o ught not to be adjudicated upon by us in the present Appeal. 11. Before parting with the record, the Court must deal with another connect ed aspect of the case which has been highlighted by Sri SS Dey, learned counsel for the Appellant. Sri Dey has drawn the attention of the Court to the Notificat ion dated 23rd May, 2001 under Section 4 of the Act and another Notification (Co rrigendum) dated 29th Nov., 2001 and has submitted that the boundaries mentioned in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act stood corrected by the latter No tification dated 29.11.2001, which corrected details found expression in the Dec laration under Section 6 of the Act. By referring to the memo No. of the Corrige ndum which is subsequent to the Memo No. under which the Declaration under Secti on 6 was published, Sri SS Dey, learned counsel for the Appellant would like the Court to infer a manipulation of the records. 12. We have considered the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 30th November, 2001 and the Corrigendum published on 29.11.2001. M erely because of a discrepancy in the Memo Number under which the Declaration an d the Corrigendum were published, no inference of manipulation can be drawn. In this regard we may usefully refer to the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act, which contemplates that after publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the authorized official may enter upon the land and, inter alia, de marcate the boundaries of the land proposed to be acquired. In this regard the f ollowing observations of the Apex Court in NARENDRAJIT SINGH AND OTHERS -VERSUS - THE STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 1971 S.C. 306 may be usefully no ted: 9. Section 4(1) does not require that the identify of the lands which may ultim ately be acquired should be specified but it enjoins upon the Government the dut y to specify the locality in which the land is needed & & 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to take the view that there i s no merit in the Appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to cost.