Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 323 (PNJ)

Satyapal v. State Of Haryana Etc.

2011-01-27

JASBIR SINGH, RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2011
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., CWPs No. 2484 of 1988 and 1943 of 1989. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No. 2484 of 1988. 2. By filing this writ petition, petitioners have impugned a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on January 24, 1984, proposing to acquire 5.74 Acres of land, situated in village Ankhir, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on January 20, 1987. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, to develop and utilise it for residential and commercial purposes in Sector 21-C , Ballabgarh. It is on record that after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. However, the same did not find favour with the authorities and accordingly declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. 3. It is primary grievance of the petitioners in this case that as per provisions of the Act, substance of the notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act was not published in two newspapers, which is a mandatory requirement. The matter went to the Lok Adalat and following order was passed on July 4, 2000: "After hearing counsel for the parties, we propose a reasonable and fair order as under: Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , for acquiring the land in dispute was issued on January 24, 1984. Notification under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act is stated to have been issued on January 20, 1987. One of the grounds on which the acquisition proceedings are challenged is that the notifications aforesaid were not published in the English or the vernacular newspapers as alleged in para 12 of the writ petition. In para 12 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is not specifically denied that any such notifications were published in the English or the vernacular newspapers. In this view of the matter, it is reasonable to presume that the necessary procedure for acquisition of the land was not followed and the acquisition cannot be sustained in law. Thus, it is directed that the respondents will not take any action for acquiring the land under the impugned notifications. In this view of the matter, it is reasonable to presume that the necessary procedure for acquisition of the land was not followed and the acquisition cannot be sustained in law. Thus, it is directed that the respondents will not take any action for acquiring the land under the impugned notifications. In case the respondents object to the proposed order as above, they may move an application before the High Court for listing of the case for disposal according to law within one month. Copy of the order be given to the counsel for the parties." 4. In the order, quoted above, it was clearly noted that there is no specific denial to the objection raised by the petitioners. It is nowhere stated in the written-statement that the notification was published in any newspaper. 5. Following order was passed by this Court on August 31, 2010: "It is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) was issued on 20/01/1987. Counsel states that contents of the notification were not published or notified in two newspapers, as is mandatory under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Sh. Sehgal seeks time to get instructions. On request, adjourned to 27/09/2010." 6. Thereafter, the respondents sought many adjournments and now an affidavit has been filed by Shri Vikas Yadav, Deputy Secretary -cum- Additional Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana. Relevant portion of the affidavit reads thus: "1. That as regards notification under section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding the land in question, the record available has been looked into. There is no record available proving that the notifications under section-4 and under section-6 were published in the newspapers though it is reiterated that same were published in the Official Gazette dated 24.1.1984 under section-4 and dated 20.1.1987 under section 6. It is also stated that public notice of the substance of this notification was published at convenient places in the said locality which has been duly mentioned in report Roznamcha which are available in record." 7. In the affidavit, it is specifically stated that no record is available to show that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published in any newspaper. In the affidavit, it is specifically stated that no record is available to show that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published in any newspaper. However, it is stated that notifications were published in the official gazette on January 24, 1984, and publication was also done in the locality. 8. The compliance of provisions of Section 4 of the Act is mandatory. The provision read thus: "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.- (1) Whenever it appears to be (appropriate Government) that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality, the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification." 9. As per above said provision, it is mandatory to publish the notification under Section 4 of the Act in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality concerned. One out of those should be in a regional language newspaper. There is a non-compliance with the above said provision. As per affidavit on record, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were not published in any newspaper. 10. In view of above, impugned notifications cannot be sustained. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notifications are quashed.