DAYA NAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONCEDEDLY , notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published in the official gazette on 22. 8. 1989 vide which land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired and publication of this notification by way of beat of drum was done on 16. 8. 1989 in the village whereas it came to be published in the two news papers on 19. 8. 1989 and 21. 8. 1989 respectively. The sole argument, on the aforesaid conceded facts, raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that publication of notification in official gazette must precede public notice of substance thereof at convenient places in the locality and prior public notices in the locality can not validly precede publication of notification in official gazette. This precise position came to be focused by Full Bench of this Court in Kashmiri Lal and Ors. , v. State of Punjab and ors. , (1983)85 P. L. R. 741 (F. B.) and by a majority judgment it was held that "publication in official gazette of the notification must precede public notice of substance thereof at convenient places in the locality. " The notifications challenged in the aforesaid case on the ground mentioned above, were quashed. The matter appears to be squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by an authoritative pronouncement of Full Bench in Kashmiri Lal's case (supra ).

(2.) THERE is no choice in the matter but for to quash notification Under Section 4, Annexure P-1 and follow-up declaration issued Under Section 6, Annexure P-2. So ordered. It is, however, made clear that this would in no way preclude the respondents from issuing a fresh notification and proceed in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. Parties are left to bear their own costs. .