MAYAPATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO points have been canvassed in this petition brought under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution for impugning the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act):- (1) That in the impugned notifications, it was not stated that the land which was being acquired consisted of lease-hold rights belonging to the petitioners. (2) That Shri Jagbir Singh, General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the objections under Section 5-A of the Act inasmuch as he was not appointed by the Government to perform the functions of Collector under the Act.

(2.) THERE appears to be no force in contention (1 ).

(3.) ALL that Section 4 requires is that the locality with reference to the land likely to be acquired should sufficiently be indicated in the notification under Section 4 so that all persons interested in the land may get notice of the proposed acquisition and prefer objections if necessary against the intended acquisition. In the impugned notification not only the locality but also the land likely to be acquired has been sufficiently described by survey numbers. In the impugned declaration under Section 6 also full particulars of the land, namely, the field numbers and their area are given of course it is not mentioned there that the lease hold rights of the petitioners, are being acquired. particularisation of the land itself, was sufficient to meet the requirements of the law. The particular interest of the petitioners would be relevant only for the purpose of assessing the compensation. By no stretch of reasoning, therefore the impugned notifications can be said to be bad for non-specification of the interest held by the petitioners in it.