HIRA LAL Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 9429, 10451, 10452, 10478, 10639, 13773 and 15670 of 1992 and C. W. P. Nos. 2970 and 8756 of 1993. The challenge in these connected petitions is to notifications dated 27. 11. 1991 and 12. 6. 1992 issued Under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act. In these petitions, even though a number of grounds to challenge the aforesaid notifications has been taken the only point pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing is that the respondents never published the notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 in the locality as required under the Land Acquisition Act and as such the petitioners could not file the objections, thus depriving them, of the valuable right granted to them under the Statute. The averments made in the writ petition with regard to the non-publication of the notifications, as contained in para 21 of the petition are as follows: "respondent No. 1 and 2 never published the notifications Under Section 4 and 6 in the locality as is required under the land Acquisition Act and as such, petitioners could not file objections Under Section 5-A of the said Act, thus valuable rights of the petitioner (s) have been taken away.

(2.) A copy of the notification was also pasted on the wall (Aam-Rasta) in the Main Bazar, Manimajra. The substance of the notification was also given due publicity by way of beat of drum as well as by pasting a copy thereof on the wall as is evidenced by the Report Roznamcha No. 1914 dated 20. 6. 1992. Confronted with the averments made in para 21 of the written statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners has chosen to file replication through C. M. No. 1548 of 1994 at the time when the matter was part-heard. This replication vide orders passed today, was placed on record and was ordered to be taken up with the main case. In para 21 of the replication, it has been pleaded that since village Manimajra is a big village, it was incumbent upon the authorities to give publicity of the notification at some convenient place and a detailed report in this regard should have made so that it could be proved that the mandatory provisions of the Act were complied with. A copy of the Roznamcha has been annexed with the replication as annexure P-3, which according to the averments made by the petitioners, does not give any details about the places where the proclamation was made. The person, who is alleged to have made the publication by beat of drum has denied that he had made any such publicity and has further mentioned that Patwari had got his thumb impressions on the blank papers. A copy of the affidavit of Achhar Singh has been attached as Annexure P-4.

(3.) NOT only this, it has also been mentioned that a copy of the notification had been pasted on the wall of the Dharamshala in Manimajra and that proclamation has been done by beat of empty drum in the streets of village Manimajra. It is thus, apparent that the proclamation was done at prominent places and the only objection with regard to a minor lapse of publication, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it has not been proved by the respondents as to at which prominent place, the proclamation was done, is if no importance. No notice can be taken at this stage of the affidavit given by Achhra Singh the authenticity of which has been seriously challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Otherwise too, in face of the contents of a copy of Roznamcha, it will be very difficult to return to a finding that Achhra Singh had only signed on the asking of somebody and as a matter of fact he had not done any proclamation by beat of empty drum Even otherwise, this Court is ill equipped to go into the question of fact which has been seriously disputed and which needs recording of evidence to reach to a definite conclusion. Reliance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1971 Revenue Law Reporter 1 (S. C.), that it is not a rule of general application that the High Court cannot go into the question of fact in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would not apply. It is-true that the High Court is not debarred from going into the question of fact but it depends upon the facts of each case and when on the material placed before the High Court, no definite finding can be recorded the parties have necessarily to be relegated to an appropriate forum.