SARDARU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition fied under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the land acquisition proceedings taken by the Lieutenant Governor, Himachal Pradesh, and the Land Acquisition Collector, Simla, in respect of certain lands which were required by the Government for the establishment of a National Himalyan Zoological Part. The Lieutenmt Governor issued a notification dated 9-11-1967, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), to the effect that the lands specified in the notification were likely to b3 required by the Government for a public purpose, namely, the establishment of a National Himalyan Zoological Part under the Fourth Five Year Plan. This notification was pablished in the official gazette on 3-5-1969. The petitioner is a person interested in one of the lands so specified in the notification as he is in possession 3 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land in Khasra Nos. 228, 230 and 231 which is included in the lands specified in the said notification and as he had also constucted a house on a portion of this land and had also grown a number of fruit plants and also trees fit for being used as timber. Accoring to the petitioner he could not file objections under Section 5A of the Act against the proposed acquisition of the lands as on the same date i. e. on 3-5-1969, the Lieutenant Governor published a notiffcation under section 6 of the Act, although this notification was dated 11-6-1968. The petitioner was, therefore, deprived of a valuable right under Section 5A of the Act by the simultaneous publication of the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. Such simultenous publication was illegal and viliated the entire acquisition proceedings. Such proceedings are, there fore, liable to be quashed.

(2.) The respondents in their written statement have stated that although the notification under section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 3-5-1969, the said notice was actually published in the village in the month of December, 1' 69, itself and that all the persons interested in the lands which were notified for acquisition had knowledge of the said notification and also filed objections under Section 5A of the Act which were duly considered by the Land Acquistion Collector. It is also stated that the petitioner also had filed a claim for compensation under Section 9 of The Act and that he was, therefore, estopped from objecting to the validity of the notification under Section 4. The respondents denied that there was any noncompliance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act or that there was any illegality in the simultaneous publication in the official gazette of the notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on the same date. In a supplementary written statement the respondents also alleged that the petitioners brother and cortenant had made a statement on 25-1-1968 before the NaibTehsildar, Simla, on behalf of himself and the petitioner to the effect that in case their lands were to be acquired they should be either provided with alternative lands and house or that they should be paid adequate compensation.

(3.) The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the respondents in which he denied that there was any publication in the village of she notification under Section 4 as alleged by the respondents and also stated that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act inasmuch as in this notification only stated that it appeared to the Lieutenant Governor that the land was required by the Government for a public purpose and did not State that the Lieutenant Governor was statisfied that the land so required. The petitioner did not file any further rejoinder to the supplementary written statement filed by the respondents.