S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) AFTER the litigation ended in the Supreme Court the State Government issued an addendum on December 16 1978 to the notification which was issued under sec. 6 of the Act as early as in 1960. By this addendum material changes were made in the notification under sec. 6 of the Act. By the first modification the expression Survey No. 146 (part) used in notification under sec. 6 of the Act to describe the land in question was changed and in its place the following expression was inserted; ( 2 ) FINAL plot No. 009 admeasuring 7967 sq. yds. The second modi- fication which was made was as follows the expression Ahmedabad City Dariapur-Kazipur was changed into town Planning Scheme No. 8 ( 3 ) THERE is no doubt or dispute about the fact that a large part of 7967 sq. yds. of land specified in the addendum formed a part of S. No. 146 (part) in respect of which notification under sec. 6 of the Act was issued. It is this addendum which is challenged in this petition by the petitioner- who is the son of original land owner. It has been argued by Miss V. P. Shah who appears on behalf of the petitioner that out of the total area of 9196 sq. yds of land in respect of which notification under sec. 6 of the Act was issued in 1960 the State Government now acquires only 6454 sq. yds and drops its intention to acquire the remaining area of the land. The has argued that to this area of 6454 sq. yds of land in regard to which the State Government has retained its intention to acquire the State Government has added a new area of 1513 sq. yds. which did not form a part of the land admeasuring 9196 sq. yds. in respect of which notification under sec. 6 of the Act was issued. This area of 1513 sq. yds. belonged originally to some other persons and not to the petiti- oner or his father but on coming into force of Town Planning Scheme No. 8 plots were constituted and while constituting the plots land adm- easuring 6454 sq. yds out of 9196 sq. yds of S. No. 146 (part) and land admeasuring 1513 sq. yds. belonged originally to some other persons and not to the petiti- oner or his father but on coming into force of Town Planning Scheme No. 8 plots were constituted and while constituting the plots land adm- easuring 6454 sq. yds out of 9196 sq. yds of S. No. 146 (part) and land admeasuring 1513 sq. yds belonging to other persons were constituted into one single plot which has been described as Final Plot No. 009 of Town Planning Scheme No. 8. ( 4 ) THE first contention which she has raised is that this new area admeasuring 1513 sq. yds which the State Government now seeks to add by the addendum cannot be acquired because notification under sec. 4 of the Act in respect of that area was never issued and also because neither the petitioner nor his predecessor-in-title had any opportunity to file objections before the Land Acquisition Officer under sec. 5-A of the Act. However she has not rested her contention there. The has gone a step further and argued that the reconstitution of the plot which is sought to be acquired and which now includes a new area of 1513 sq. yds has transformed beyond recognition the identity of the land and that therefore the notifications issued under secs. 4 and 6 of the Act respectively in 1958 and 1960 have become inoperative or inapplicable. We are unable to uphold this argument raised by Miss Shah. It is true that the Government now seeks to acquire an area admeasuring 7967 sq. yds which consists of 6454 sq. yds (a large part of old area) and 1513 sq. yds which is the new area. Merely because two such areas have been brought together and given a new number by virtue of the application of the Town Planning Scheme it cannot be said that the fundamental character of the land has undergone such a bodily change that the notifications under secs. 4 and 6 of the Act issued respectively in 1958 and 1960 become wholly irrelevant. In our opinion notifications under secs. 4 and 6 of the Act still subsist and are good in law so far as land admeasuring 6454 sq. yds is concerned which the State Government now seeks to acquire after the issue of the addendum by them. However the proposed acquisition of land admeasuring 1513 sq. yds. In our opinion notifications under secs. 4 and 6 of the Act still subsist and are good in law so far as land admeasuring 6454 sq. yds is concerned which the State Government now seeks to acquire after the issue of the addendum by them. However the proposed acquisition of land admeasuring 1513 sq. yds. in respect of which no notification was issued under sec. 4 of the Act and no opportunity was given to its owner to file objections under sec. 5-A of the Act must be declared to be bad void in law. We therefore partly uphold the argument raised by Miss Shah in that behalf. ( 5 ) THE next argument which Miss Shah has raised is based upon sec. 68 of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 It provides as under;"68 Any right in an original plot which in the opinion of the Town Planning Officer is capable of being transferred wholly or in part without prejudice to the making of a town planning scheme to a reconstituted plot shall be so transferred and any right in an original plot which in the opinion of the Town Planning Officer is not capable of being so transferred shall be extinguished. Provided that an agricultural lease shall not be transferred from an original plot to a reconstituted plot without the consent of all the parties to such lease". Relying upon this section Miss Shah has argued that the right which accrued to the State Government from the notifications under secs. 4 and 6 of the Act issued respectively in 1958 and 1960 is extinguished by virtue of the provisions of sec. 68. In our opinion this section has no application to the right of eminent domain which the State Government enjoys in resp- ect of immovable properties. Sec. 68 when it is read with sec. 69 clearly pre-supposes that it applies to the rights of private parties which may suffer in given cases extinguishment or transfer. The right of eminent domain which the State enjoys is a higher right and tra-nscends beyond sec. 68. Therefore sec. 68 has no relevance to the extinguishment of that right of eminent domain. We are therefore unable to uphold the second contention which Miss Shah has raised before us. It is rejected. Petition partly allowed. .