SHANTARAM SUKARIYA CHORIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The present petition is filed by the petitioners on 20-12-1988. The award in respect of the land in question was passed on 4-8-1988. The petitioners have thus come Before the Court after more than 2 years from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act No doubt, the petitioners have averred in petition at page No. 6 that they had filed their objections after the receipt of notification under Section 4(1) and thereafter they have not received any intimation and they got notice on 18-11-1988 to receive the compensation, thereupon they came to know of passing of the award on 4-8-1988. But if the document produced by the respondents and particularly the Panchnama at Annexure 'B' produced along with the reply filed by the respondents are considered, then it would quite clear that the contention of the petitioners that they had no intimation after they had filed objections is not correct It has been specifically contended that their objections were dealt with, and, thereafter, the further notification was published and the record shows that the notification under Section 6 was published to the knowledge of the present petitioners. Therefore there is no proper explanation regarding the delay in filing this petition. The petitioners have come before the court after more than 2 years after the said notification under Section 6 is issued and after the notification under Section 9 is issued and after the award is made. Therefore, on the ground of delay their claim could not be considered. In the cases of Afalatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delia A.I.R. 1974 SC 2077, Babu Singh v. Union of India AI.R. 1979 S.C. 1713 and Vishwas Nagar Evacuee Plot Purchasers Association v. Under secretary, Delhi Administration and Anr. AIR 1990 S.C. 849 the Supreme Court has refused to consider the challenge to the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 on the ground that they were behind and delayed. We are also of the opinion that the petitioners' claim is hit by delay.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that the Collector had published the substance of the notification under Section 6 on 20-3-1986 though the notification under Section 6 was published in Gujarat Samachar on 18th June 1986. As regard this claim of these petitioners, there is no specific denial in the reply filed by the respondent but if the pleading of the petitioner in para 4.4-A is taken- into consideration, then it would be quite clear that the Collector had prepared the notification under Section 6 on 18-3-1986 and he had forwarded the same to the Government It seems that the Collector was under the impression that a notification prepared by him and forwarded to the State Government would be immediately published by the State Government. Therefore, on that assumption it seems that he had the publication of the substance of the notification on 20-3-1986 and for the purpose also prepared the panchnama which is at Annexure 'B' with the reply, at page 29. There is no material to show that by the said publication of the substance of the notification, any prejudice is caused to any of the petitioners. No doubt, the ' publication of the said substance of the notification is an irregularity, but when the said irregularity has not resulted in injustice or prejudice to any party, it cannot be said to have become illegality. In the case of Babu Singh and Ors. v. Union of India AI.R. 1979 (Supreme Court) p. 1713 the Apex Court has held that the issuance of notification under Sections 4 and 6 simultaneously would not amount to any illegality. If the said decision of Supreme Court is taker? into consideration and when there is no material on record to show that any prejudice was caused to the petitioners, the publication of the substance by the Collector before the actual publication of notification under Section 6 could not amount to any illegality.