ARJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notification (P-1) dated January 23, 1970 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is impugned primarily on the ground that there has been not compliance of the provisions of that section. In what manner there is no compliance of the law contained in this provisions of the statute is not stated in the petition. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents they say that the acquisition had been effected in accordance with law. In the absence of any allegation by the petitioner that either the substance of the notification was not duly notified in the locality concerned or the said publication in the locality was in any way was unreasonably delayed it is difficult to record a finding that the provisions of Section 4 have not been complied with.

(2.) Besides this it is admitted in the petition itself that subsequent to the publication of this notification in the gazette the petitioner filed his objections under Section 5-A of the Act on February 25, 1974. These objections were, however, considered and dismissed on March 12, 1974. A Division Bench of this Court in Bishna alias Bishan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another,1978 RajdhaniLR 381, has noted that in a case where a landowner has filed his objections under Section 5-A of the Act and the same have been considered then in the absence of any prejudice having been caused to him on account of the delayed publication of the substance of the notification in the locality does not call for the quashing of the acquisition proceedings.

(3.) Besides the above noted contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner also maintains that the petitioner is a small land owner and the land was sought to be acquired for providing residential sites to certain specified persons, who by the time of filing of the petition were either not anxious for the allotment or were not available to the government for such allotment on account of their having migrated to Uttar Pradesh, there was no necessity with the government to acquire this land. Even if, these grounds are accepted to be correct I do not find anything legally wrong with the government to acquire the land in question. The learned counsel has failed to point out any provision of law or any precedent on the basis of which it can be said that on account of the existence of these facts the acquisition proceedings are rendered invalid.