ANGRUP THAKAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners owned 84 big has 11biswas of land in village Dobhi. A notification under section 4 of tie Land Acquisition Act was issued on January 22, 1965, with respect to the aforesaid land. In the said notice it was recited that "land is likely to be required to be taken by Govenment at the public expenses for a public purpose namely for the construction of building and doing research work on vegetables". This notification was followed by notification dated October 15, 1965, under section 6 of the said Act. The relevant part of which reads :

(2.) Aggrieved by this acquisition, the land owners-petitioners filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) The first objection raised by Mr. Sachar on behalf of the petitioners is that they were not heard on their objections filed under section 5-A of the said Act. Mr. Sachar relied on paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 19, 21 and 24 of his petition and the replies thereto in the writtenstatement filed on behalf of the first respondent. In these paragraphs it has been specifically alleged that no date had been fixed by the Collector for hearing and disposing of the objections of the petitioners under section 5-A. Reply to the paragraphs 10 to 12 is paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 for respondent No. 2". In reply to paragraph 19, there is a general and vague statement that conditions precedent to the issue of notification under section 6 were complied with. However, in paragraph 24 of the written-statement one finds for the first time a positive statement that "However, respondent No. 2 heard the objections of the petitioners on April, 19)35." I would like to point out that this is an extremely unsatisfactory way of replying to the allegations made in the petition. It is incumbent on the respondents to deal with each and every paragraph in a proper manner. In the affidavit accompanying the written-statement paragraph 24 has been affirmed by the deponent as true to his knowledge. It follows that the deponent had information regarding the hearing of the objections by the second respondent. In these circumstances, it was hardly proper for him to state in reply to paragraphs 10 to 12 of the petition that it was for respondent No. 2 to deal with the matter.