Judgment Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Notification dated 13.8.1981 published in the Punjab Government Gazettee for extension of Municipal limits and as a consequence of extension of boundaries, House Tax to the tune of Rs. 3,62,981.25 was imposed, on the petitioner for the period from 1988 to 1991 which is also challenged in this petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner industry is situated at Bathinda. It is alleged in the petition that. for extending the Municipal limits Bathinda, earlier Notification was issued on 24.11.1974 for inclusion of area falling between Sirsa Railway Line and Delhi Railway Line in the Municipal limits of Bathinda but that Notification was challenged by Milk Plant, Bathinda as well as Guru Nanak Ice Factory, Bathinda in a civil suit and was declared illegal by the District Judge, Bathinda. Thereafter, another Notification was issued on 8.3.1977 including some more area falling between Sirsa Railway Line and Delhi Railway Line situated on the south of Dabwali Road, Bathinda. Thereaftet, another Notification on 13.8.1981 was issued for inclusion of area adjoining the existing boundaries where the industry of petitioner is situated. At the time of issuance of Notification for inclusion of area, no notice to the petitioner or the other similar situated persons was given so as to enable them to file objections. After inclusion of the area, Municipal Committee, Bathinda imposed House Tax on the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,62,981.25 vide notice dated 12.6.1990 for the period 1988-91. Hence, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the inclusion of area by way of Notification dated 13.8.1981 and demand notice dated 14.6.1990 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount on the ground that no individual notice before inclusion of area and assessment of the House Tax was given to the petitioner. 3. Upon notice, Municipal Committee, Bathinda filed its written statement stating that petitioner- Company came into existence after 1981, i.e., after the date of issuance of Notification Annexure P.1, therefore, it has no locus to challenge the said Notification. It is further stated that a notice was issued under Section 65 read with Section 68 for deterniininn annual value for the assessment year 1987-1988 and there was a refusal on the part of petitioner- Company to receive the notice. It is further stated that a notice was issued under Section 65 read with Section 68 for deterniininn annual value for the assessment year 1987-1988 and there was a refusal on the part of petitioner- Company to receive the notice. Therefore, the Company cannot raise an issue that no notice prior to making assessment was issued to it. It is further stated in the written statement that the.order of assessment was appealable and no appeal has been filed by the petitioner under the Act, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. The main plea raised by Mr. Anurag Chopra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that prior to issuance of Notification under Section 5 of the Act, no individual notice was given to the petitioner or other persons residing in the locality which were included in the Municipal limit, therefore, the petitioner could not represent against the extension of boundaries of the Municipal limit. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State contended that no notice was required to be issued as a public notice was duly published in the official Gazette and that was due compliance of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act. 6. Section 5(1) of the Act reads as under :- "5. Alteration of limits of Municipality.(1) The State Government may, from time to time, keeping in view the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 4 and after consultation with the concerned Municipality, by Notification in the Official Gazette, alter the limits specified for any Municipal area so as to include therein or to exclude therefrom such, area as may be specified in the Notification." 7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that only Notification in the official Gazette is required to be issued, as is provided under Sub-Section 1 of Section 4 of the Act which reads thus :- "4. Specification of local areas to be smaller urban areas or transitional areas and Constitution of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that only Notification in the official Gazette is required to be issued, as is provided under Sub-Section 1 of Section 4 of the Act which reads thus :- "4. Specification of local areas to be smaller urban areas or transitional areas and Constitution of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats. -(1) The State Government may, having regard to population of the area the density, of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors, as it may deem fit, specify, by Notification in the Official Gazette, any area to be a transitional area or a smaller urban area for the purposes of this Act :- Provided that no military cantonment or any part thereof) shall be included in such transitional area or a smaller urban area : Provided further that such an urban area or part thereof, as the State Government may, having regard to the size of the area and Municipal services being provided or proposed to be provided by an industrial establishment in that area and such other factors as it may deem fit, by Notification, specify to be an industrial township shall not form part of a transitional area or smaller urban area." 8 It is nowhere provided under the provisions of either Section 4 (1) or Section 5 that individual notices were required to be given to the persons living in the locality sought to be included in the limits of the Municipality, therefore, the objection raised by Mr. Chopra cannot be accepted. Moreover, in this regard, the law is well settled that Gazette Notification itself is a public notice and is deemed to be conveyed to all concerned parties. Once the Gazette Notification is published, no further individual notice is required to be issued in the absence of a specific provision for issuance of such a notice under the relevant provisions of the Act. Once the Gazette Notification is published, no further individual notice is required to be issued in the absence of a specific provision for issuance of such a notice under the relevant provisions of the Act. So far as, the objection taken by the Municipal Committee in its written statement that the petitioner-Company had refused to accept the notice under Section 65 read with Section 68 for assessment of the House Tax is concerned, in the replication filed, only assertion has been made that contents of para 7 of the written statement is denied as being incorrectly stated and that of the writ petition is reiterated. There is no specific denial that no notice was issued or there was no refusal on the part of Company. During the course of arguments, Mr. Chopra dinot rai, d .se any issue with regard to non-issue of notice under Section 65. 9. No other point was argued. 10. In view of the facts narrated above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. However, interim order dated 17.7.1991 was granted staying recovery on furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer. It is made clear that in case any payment has been made by the petitioner- Company, the respondent shall give due consideration and adjust the same from the eventual dues.