BISHNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab issued notification dated 11th of September, 1975, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), which was published in the Official Gazette the same day, a copy of which is Annexure P.2. The publication of the notification was made in the locality admittedly on Ist of October, 1975. Bishna, one of the landowners, filed objections on 10th of October, 1975, under Section 5-A of the Act. Section 6 notification was published on 20th of October, 1975, a copy of which is Annexure P.3. Thereafter, notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to him, a copy of which is Annexure P.4.

(2.) On 6th of November, 1975, Bishna filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging notifications P.2 and P.3 and the notice P.4 on the ground that the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not made in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the same in the Official Gazette and the publication made twenty days thereafter invalidated the notification, with the result that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 as also the notice under Section 9 deserves to be quashed. In the written statement filed by the State, the facts stated in the writ petition were admitted and no explanation was offered for not publishing the notification in the locality soon after 11th of September, 1975. However, it was stated that since the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 10th of October, 1975, and the same having been duly considered, no writ petition was competent even if there was some defect in publication of the notification in the locality. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 30th of January, 1976 being of the opinion that the publication was not belated as the allegation made in the writ petition was denied by the State. The petitioner has come up in appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent.

(3.) Shri G.S. Grewal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that twenty days unexplained delay in publication of the substance of the notification in the locality was not belated and the case was fully covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rattan Singh and Another V. The State of Punjab and Others, 1976 RajdhaniLR 379. On the basis of the Full Bench it was urged that the impugned notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act deserve to be quashed.