UMARO SINGH GOPI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of four connected writ petitions, Nos. 2603, 2724 and 2824 of 1967 and 294 of 1968, in which the same points are involved for decision. It is conceded by the counsel for the parties that the decision in C. W. 2603 of 1967 will cover the other cases as well. I will therefore, refer to the facts of that writ petition only.

(2.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filled by umrao Singh and 15 others, residents of Faridabad, district Gurgaon, challenging the notification dated 29th of July, 1967, issued by the Governor of Haryana. The said notification reads thus:

(3.) IN the return field by the State, it had been mentioned that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been duly published in the Government gazette and they had also been given due publicity by beat of drum by the patwaris concerned in the villages in which the lands were situated. It was thus incorrect to say that the petitioners were not in the know of the said notifications. It was also said that immediate possession, under section 17 of the Act, had also so far not been taken from the petitioners. The possession would be taken from them, as soon as the award was announced and compensation paid for the land and the constructions etc. , acquired by the Government,. The compliance of the provisions of section 5-A of the Act was not dispensed with. On the other hand, in the notification under section 4 of the Act, it was notified that objections under section 5-A should be field with the Land Acquisition Collector. In fact, many objections were received from other interested persons, but the petitioners did not do so. The notification under section 6 of the Act was made in accordance with law. Because the procedure prescribed by section 5-A of the Act had been followed.