INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 6 read with Section 7 and 17 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dated March 9, 1972, published in the Punjab Government Gazette, dated March 17, 1972.

(2.) THE facts of this writ petition briefly are that the petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 75 Kanals situated in Village Rasulpur, tehsil Dasuya, district Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute' ). Adjoining to the said land, he owns another block of land measuring 48 kanals. Thus the total land of the petitioner is about 123 kanals. He installed two electric tube-wells and one diesel engine tube-well for irrigation on the said land. He also constructed about 1500 feet of pucca drain at a considerable cost for irrigation purposes. The State of Punjab issued notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 6 read with Sections 7 and 17 (2) of the Act and acquired agricultural land mentioned therein including the land in dispute for alleged public purpose, namely for setting up a New Mandi for Tanda Urmar. He challenged the aforesaid notifications on various grounds but he made his submission only on one ground, namely, that respondent No. 2 did not cause public notice of the substance of the Notification (Annexure 'a') at convenient places in the locality published where the land sought to be acquired was situated as required by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. The State has filed the return and contested the writ petition. Inter alia, it is stated that the possession of the land notified under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 (2) (c) of the Act, is yet to be taken. It is further stated that public notice of the publication of the notification is being made.

(3.) THE only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that between publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 it was mandatory for the Collector to have given a public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality where the land is situated. He also submits that if such a public notice was not given at places in the locality, no notification under Section 6 of the Act could be issued. In support of his contention, he relies on the observations of Sarkaria, J. in Gurdit Singh v. State of Punjab, 73 Pun LR 592= (AIR 1972 Punj 12) which are in the following terms:-