RAJ AND SANDEEP LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notification dated April 4, 1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitive Act, 1894 (as amended uptodate and hereinafter called 'the Act') the State of Punjab sought to acquire a total of 53 kanals and 8 marlas of land including 16 marlas of land belonging to the petitioner - Company in village Jandiali, Tehsil and District Ludhiana at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the widening of existing road from Jandiali to Budhewal by 11 ft. (2 karams) on both sides of the road for smooth transportation of sugarcane to the Doraha Co-operative Sugar mills Ltd., Budhewal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. Simultaneously, the urgency provisions under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act as amendment by the State of Punjab, were also invoked on the ground that the land described in the notification was urgently required for the aforesaid purpose. The declaration under section 6 was also published by a notification of the same date and the Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana was directed to proceed to take possession of the land described in the notifications. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on March 25, 1991. These acquisition proceedings have been challenged by the petitioner-Company in the present writ petition filed in August, 1991 under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The notification Under Section 4 of the Act was published in the daily 'Tribune' on June 21, 1989 and in the Punjabi Daily 'Rozana Nawan Zamana' on June 21, 1989. Similarly, the declaration under section 6 was published in the daily 'Tribune' dated June 30, 1989 and Punjabi 'Roznana Nawan Zamana' on June 28, 1989. A proclamation by beat of drum was also made in the locality on July 13, 1989. In the background of this factual position, it was strenuously urged on behalf of the writ petitioner that since there was a gap of more than three months, between the publication of the notification under Section 4 in the Official Gazette and the proclamation made in the locality and since it was not done simultaneously, the acquisition proceedings were liable to be quashed on this ground. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore V. Abdul Razak, 1973 AIR(SC) 2361

(3.) Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the petitioner, we regret our inability to accept the same. It is true that in the case before their Lordship of the Supreme Court, the gap between the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act in the Official Gazette and the publication in the locality was about 2-1/2 months and the notification had been quashed by the High Court of Mysore on the ground of this delay, their Lordships upheld the judgment of the High Court but that a case which pertained to the unamended provisions of the Act. Moreover, that was not a case in which the urgency provisions had been invoked. Section 4(1) and 5-A of the Act, as they then stood in the year 1961, read as under :-