ANAND DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the acquisition of land of the petitioner in pursuance of notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (for short, the Act) is assailed on two

(2.) So far as the challenge to the validity of the notification under Section 4 is concerned, it is pointed out that the said notification was published in the gazette on February 27, 1968 and the substance of the same was published in the locality on April 3, 1968. According to the learned counsel, this time lag between the date of issuance of the notification and its publication in the locality renders the same void as according to the various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court these two publications should have been done simultaneously. This contention of the learned counsel is well founded. By now it is well settled that publication of the substance of the notification in the locality concerned has to be simultaneous with the publication of the same in the gazette or at least there should not be an unreasonable time lag between the two publications. In the absence of the same, the entire acquisition proceedings are undisputably rendered void. In view of this conclusion of mine the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above, does not arise.

(3.) In the light of the discussion above, I allow this petition and quash the impugned notifications. However, I pass no order as to costs. Petition allowed.