Judgement LALIT, J. :- This petition seeks to challenge the two notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. The first challenge is to the notification which was issued on May 27, 1966 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The other challenge is to the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on January 14, 1969. 2. The Gram Panchayat Fetri passed a resolution on September 19, 1963, requesting the Government to acquire land for construction of houses and for extension of the abadi. The resolution shows that it was proposed that khasra Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of village Chincholi be acquired for extension of gaothan. In pursuance of this resolution proceedings were taken up by the Revenue Authorities for the purpose of making an enquiry under Section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Accordingly the enquiry under Section 226 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was conducted and ultimately on February 22, 1966, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur made an order under Section 226 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code holding that private land be acquired for the extension of the gaothan. He also held that the present abadi is insufficient and there was no other land available for the extension of the abadi. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on May 27, 1966, which notified khasra Nos. 47 (0.56 acres), 48 (0.56 acres) and 49 (0.56 acres) for acquisition. Petitioner No. 1 holds khasra No. 48 and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 jointly own khasra No. 47. 3. After the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, the petitioners submitted their objections to the proposed acquisition. These objections were considered and a report was submitted under Section 5-A. This report under Section 5-A was considered by the Commissioner and a notification under Section 6 was issued on January 14, 1969. 4. In this petition the acquisition is sought to be challenged only on the grounds that a proper enquiry as required under Section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was not held. It is argued that when the order dated February 22, 1966 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioners were not given proper opportunity of hearing. 4. In this petition the acquisition is sought to be challenged only on the grounds that a proper enquiry as required under Section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was not held. It is argued that when the order dated February 22, 1966 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioners were not given proper opportunity of hearing. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are sought to be challenged on the grounds that there is another land in khasra No. 67 which was available for acquisition. It is, therefore, submitted that the land belonging to the petitioners was not required for the purposes of acquisition. 5. These are the two points on the basis of which this acquisition is sought to be challenged. The first contention, as stated above, is that the Sub-Divisional Officer, before passing the order on February 22, 1966, did not give a proper opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. The order under Section 226 (2) is sought to be challenged on the ground of want of prosper opportunity to the petitioners. It is to be stated that what Section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code purports to say is that before the acquisition is made under the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government should be satisfied that no unoccupied land is available for the purposes of acquisition. Under Section 226 (2), the State Government has only to find out whether such an unoccupied land is available or not. This finding could be arrived at by making enquiries or by consideration of the revenue records or by spot inspection or by other methods. It is not obligatory that under Section 226 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code the parties should be heard and the enquiry of a judicial nature be conducted. The whole grievance of the petitioners is that in this enquiry they were not properly heard. We feel that the nature of the enquiry under Section 226 (2) does not really necessitate a personal hearing to be given to the parties. As such, the challenge on this ground must necessarily fail. Even on facts it does not appear to us that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing. Enquiry under Section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was in fact started in 1963-64. As such, the challenge on this ground must necessarily fail. Even on facts it does not appear to us that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing. Enquiry under Section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was in fact started in 1963-64. It had gone through various stages and the necessary requirements of making a spot inspection were also gone through. The nature of the enquiry which was being held for a considerable length of time does not support the statement of the petitioners that they were not properly heard. The challenge to the notification must therefore, fail. 6. It is then submitted that there was other land available for the purposes of acquisition. In reply to this contention, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The only other land which is shown by the petitioners to be available is khasra No. 67. That khasra number measures 2.43 acres. In the affidavit in reply it is stated that this is a Banjar land and it was found to be unsuitable as it was at a distance of 4 furlongs from the abadi area. It was also found that there was a nalla flowing in between the existing abadi and this land and for these two reasons, it was felt that khasra No. 67 was not suitable for the purposes of acquisition. Under the Land Acquisition Act the question as to which land is most suitable for acquisition should normally be decided by the appropriate Government. The affidavit in reply clearly shows that khasra No. 67 was not a suitable land for the purposes of acquisition. The reasons for such a decision of the Government have also been disclosed in the reply. The decision that khasra No. 67 was not suitable for acquisition is clearly supported by the record. 7. These were the only grounds on the basis of which the acquisition is sought to be challenged. As we have held against the petitioners on those grounds, the petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.