Harjinder Singh and others vs The State of Punjab and another

M.R. Sharma, J.—An attempt was made by the State Government on an earlier occasion to acquire the disputed land. The petitioner filed Civil Writ No. 5540 of 1975; challenging these acquisition proceedings and the petition was dismissed as infructuous on November 28, 1975, when an undertaking was given on behalf of the State Government that the notification made in that case will be withdrawan.

However, on November 19, 1975, another notification had in fact been issued. Before issuing that notification the State Government had invoked the urgency provisions and had dispensed with the filing of the objections u/s 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. One of the grievances made in this petition is that the substance of the notification issued on November 13, 1975, had not been published in the locality.

In the return filed on behalf of the State it has been stated that the substance of the notification had been published in the locality and further in view of the fact that the filing of objections u/s 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act had been dispensed with it was not necessary for the State Government to make its publication.

The written statement filed on behalf of the State does not indicate the date on which the substance of the notification might have been published in the locality. In these circumstances it cannot be determined whether this publication was made in time or after some delay. On this ground alone, the petition deserves to succeed in view of the rules laid down by the Division Bench Of this Court in Murari Lal Bhargava and others v. State of Punjab and others C.W. 713 of 1977. Civil Writ No. 713 of 1977 decided on April 13, 1977. In Narindrajit Singh and Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, , it has been laid down that even if the urgency provisions are invoked by the State Government in pursuance of the acquisition of some land, the substance of notification u/s 4 of the Act has to be published in the locality. Since it has not been proved by the respondent that this publication had in fact been made, I allow this petition and quash the acquisition-proceedings.