TULSA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are as follows:

(2.) BEFORE us the main point urged was that the notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is not in accordance with law, because it does not give sufficient description of the locality so as to convey the landowners of the land concerned the intention of the government to acquire their land so as to enable them to put in objection under section 5-A of the Act or to take other steps. The learned Single Judge felt that the description of the land as near railway station, Barara, was sufficient to convey to the land owners of the land in the vicinity of the railways station that their lands were likely to be acquired. " One of the reasons given was that when the acquisition proceedings were started Barara was a small village. It was urged in the first place that there is nothing on the record to show that Barara could be described as a small village at the time of the acquisition proceedings. The learned counsel wanted to refer to the Gazetteers of Ambala district showing that as far back as in 1923-24 Barara was an important place which formed the headquarters of an itinerating Veterinary Assistant of the district. It is however, not necessary to go into this question. No plan has been put on the record to show how far the land sought to be acquired was from the railway station. In any case 'near railway station' hardly gives any indication of where the land in question is situated. The object of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is to give a clear indication to the owners whose land is sought to be acquired so that they can take steps in the matter. In Bohari Lal v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1970 All 414 (FB) it was observed as follows:--

(3.) BY saying that the land sought to be acquired in the present case was near the railway station gave no indication about the distance and the direction in which the land sought to be acquired was situated. It is a common case between the parties that the land in dispute bears Khasra number. The simplest way to describe it was by the Khasra number or by giving other details. It by the words 'near the railway station' it was meant that the land is situated within two furlongs of the railway station, it would be impossible that all the land holders whose land is situated say within the radius of two furlongs taking the railway station as the centre, would come within the description. The area to be acquired was 0. 37 acres. To expect that all the landholders within this area of two furlongs radius must rush to the office of the Collector to put in their objections would be defeating the very object of the notifications under section 4 of the Act. Apart from this, there is no mention that the area was situated within two furlongs either. It may be more or it may be less. This notification, therefore, hardly complies with the provisions of the law. That being the case, the very foundation of the acquisition proceedings is lacking and the subsequent proceedings taken on the basis of the same will be ineffective and invalid.