JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is running a small barber shop in the revenue estate of Village Bir Pipli. The land is measuring 15 square yards. On this, the petitioner has raised a small structure. This land alongwith an area measuring about 12-1/2 acres has been acquired by the Government for the construction of a Pump Station by the Indian Oil Corporation. The notifications under Section 4 were issued on February 19, 1998 on July 21, 1998. There was a corrigendum issued on November 6, 1998. The notifications under Section 6 were issued on December 30, 1998 and January 13, 1998 (January 13, 1999 ?). The petitioner complains that the notifications having not been issued in conformity with law, the action of the Government in proceeding to acquire his land is vitiated. 2. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the respondents. A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It has been inter alia pointed out that the award has already been announced on May 5, 1999 and that construction is in progress at the site. 3. The Indian Oil Corporation had filed a civil misc application No. 11748 of 1999 for being impleaded as a party. Counsel for the parties are agreed that this application be allowed. A separate written statement has already been filed on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation by the Deputy General Manager (C), Pipeline Division of the Corporation. It has been inter alia pointed out that the Corporation is executing a project at an estimated cost of Rs. 37 crores. The purpose is to provide a pipeline to Saharanpur from the Panipat- Ambala Section of the existing Mathura-Jalandhar Pipeline for transportation of petroleum products. 4. The respondents have also pointed out that the petitioner had filed objections under Section 5-A. The petitioner was heard on April 22, 1998 and that keeping in view the situation at the spot, it is not possible to exclude his land from acquisition. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mandatory provisions of Sections 4 and 5-A having not been complied with inasmuch as due publicity was not given. Thus, the action of the Government in proceeding to acquire the land is vitiated. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mandatory provisions of Sections 4 and 5-A having not been complied with inasmuch as due publicity was not given. Thus, the action of the Government in proceeding to acquire the land is vitiated. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents. 7. Admittedly, the total land owned by the petitioner is only 15 square yards. There is a small structure on this land. According to the award, the petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs. 2000/- on account of the cost of land and Rs. 15,400/- on account of the cost of the structure. The compensation has been duly assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The petitioner has the remedy under Section 18. It is also the admitted position that at site, the construction work is going on. Considerable construction has already been raised. It is in the background of this factual position that the petitioners grievance has to be examined. 8. It is undoubtedly correct that the provisions of the Act place a mandatory duty on the authority to give due publicity to the acquisition proceedings. The obvious purpose is to enable the concerned landowner to raise his objections so that his view-point is considered before a decision to acquire or to exempt the land in dispute is taken. What is the position in the present case ? 9. On the petitioners own showing, he had filed objections under Section 5-A on March 18, 1998. In pursuance to these objections, he was actually heard on April 22, 1998. Thus, the petitioner cannot have the complaint that he was not made aware of the Governments intention to acquire the land or that he was unable to raise his objections. In this situation, it cannot be said that any prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. That being the position, the claim that the notification should be quashed for lack of publicity cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. Saini contends that the substance of the notification was not published at the convenient places in the village. 11. Even this objection is wholly untenable. Firstly, the respondents have disputed the petitioners averment. Secondly, the petitioner has in fact raised all the objections. Thus, the grievance is totally baseless. 12. 10. Mr. Saini contends that the substance of the notification was not published at the convenient places in the village. 11. Even this objection is wholly untenable. Firstly, the respondents have disputed the petitioners averment. Secondly, the petitioner has in fact raised all the objections. Thus, the grievance is totally baseless. 12. Faced with this situation, Mr. Saini has contended that according to the objections submitted by the petitioner, he had purchased the land in the year 1986 for a sum of Rs. 12,400/-. Thus, the compensation as assessed is wholly inadequate. 13. So far as this aspect is concerned, it is the admitted position that the petitioner has sought a reference under Section 18. The matter shall be examined by the competent authority. This Court does not have to determine the quantum of compensation in these proceedings at this stage. In any event, the petitioner shall be entitled to make his claim with regard to the quantum of compensation in accordance with law. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.