Petltloner I 1 n hopal (M P The Coilector Ralpur Distt. 1 B ), r ‘ '3 etition’ filed by the:a~'re3ponde _1 and thé‘acquisiti proceedmgs of the disputed land beanng Khasra No 83/3 (ne number) and 83118 (old num er) purchased : petlhoner- society and thereafter allotted to the members of t ~ socrety has been quashed 2. Leamed counsel for the appellan vehemently argued that 1- LKhasra No 83/18 rs the part of KhasJ’a No 836 whereas Khasra ? j »’ W § i» ,No 83/35 Is the part of 83/18 From the patwarl report t g 1; o above fact rs absolutely clear Even iotherwrse the other ers ‘ e I who purchased the land along wrth the petmon socrety has submltted their objections aher norcatlon under L ‘Sectlon 6 of the Land Acqulsmon Act 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) 1 ‘ a was published whlch clearly shows that each and e ‘ Interested person were day aware of acqursrtron proceedings o the basrs of notrfcatlon Issued under section 6 of the Act thu - acqursrtron proceedings could not be quashed on the grounds) V mentioned m the Impugned order ( On perusal of the Impugned order It Is manifestly clear that the - property In question was purchased by the society G 04 10 1983 The property was the part of Khasra No 83/18 , r - After purchaslng by the society the plot was renumbered as ~ Khasra No 83/35 by order dated 25 041984 whereas m the notlflcatnon under Sectron 6 of the Act nerther Khasra No 83/18 v nor Khasra No 83/35 Is mentioned Thus, m our consrdere ‘ « y oplnlon the learned Srngle Judge, after elaborately considenng the submissrons made by learned counsel for the parties as well a n _ ’ s by the respondent/appellant has held that Inuthe declaratlo " fs a t ~ p ntu o onslg ‘ I ‘ V w _‘ V he he o é _ tf g v n s . } - o f ‘ ; ., ‘ d p