- (1.) THESE are two writ petitions challenging the land acquisition proceedings taken by the Collector. Saharanpur, for acquiring land for purposes of extension and development of Har Ki Pairi at Hardwar and for widening the road in front of Har Ki Pairi, Hardwar. Two notifications, one dated 18th July, 1973, and the other dated 5th July, 1973, issued by the Collector of Saharanpur, were published in the Gazette dated 4th August, 1973, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings initiated under these two notifications have been impugned in these two writ petitions.
(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 6843 of 1973, there are 24 petitioners including Smt. Kamal Rani whose property which includes land and building, is sought to be acquired by the Collector for the purposes of extension and development of Har Ki Pairi. Smt. Dayawati and Smt Krishnawati are two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7423 of 1973. Their land and building standing thereon is sought to be acquired under the impugned notification dated 5th July, 1973, for the purpose of widening the road in front of Har Ki Pairi from Tonga Stand to J. K. House. The Gazette notifications on 4th August, 1973, invited objections from the affected persons under Section 5-A of the Act but the publication of the substance of the gazette notification in the locality was made on 38th and 29th August, 1973. Individual notices were also served on the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections which were considered and a report was submitted to the State Government under Section 5-A of the Act. Meanwhile the petitioners filed the present writ petitions challenging the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. During the pendency of the writ petitions, notifications under Section 6 were issued and published in the extraordinary U. P. Gazette in December and January. Sri S. J. Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was not complied with in the present case inasmuch as the substance of the notifications published in the official gazette was not given publicity in the locality. Therefore the notifications issued under Section 4 (1) were invalid and the petitioners' land or building could not legally be acquired. Section 4 (1) and Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, are in the following words :- "4 (1). Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. 5-A. Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company may, within 21 days after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be." Section 4 (1) requires publication of notification in the gazette indicating the intention of the Government or the Collector that the land is needed for a public purpose and it further requires that a notice of substance of such notification should be given at convenient places in the locality. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh has framed Rules in this respect, which are contained in paragraph 415 of the U. P. Revenue Manual which lay down mode of publication in the locality. According to that provision the substance of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) is required to be published in the locality by posting notices at the convenient places in the locality and by proclamation by beat of drum in the locality and if possible notice of the notification should also be served on the affected persons whose property is likely to be needed for public purpose. Thus two things namely publication in the gazette and publication of the substance of the notification in the locality in the manner aforesaid are required to be done before the land or property of a person is acquired under the Act. In Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1967 SC 1074) it was held that the requirement of publication in the gazette and in the locality under Section 4 (1) of the Act was mandatory. It was further laid down that if a notification was issued under Section 4 without complying with the mandatory directions, the notification would be void and the land acquisition proceedings taken in pursuance thereto would be equally void. The law is thus settled that if Section 4 (1) is not complied with inasmuch as the publication of the substance of the notification is not made in the locality the acquisition proceedings which may be taken pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) may be rendered invalid.
(3.) THE question then arises, whether the aforesaid requirement was complied with in the instant case. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State does not give any necessary details. The learned standing counsel has, however, produced the original record of the land acquisition proceedings from the Collector's office. On a perusal of the records, I find that the two notifications in the instant case issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act were published in the U. P. Gazette dated 4th August, 1973. It appears that the Gazette could not be available to the Land Acquisition Officer, Saharanpur, till 22nd August, 1973. On that date he received copies of the Gazette, thereupon he directed that steps be taken for publication of notice in the locality. In pursuance to that direction notices giving the substance of the notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Act were published in the locality on 28th and 29th August, 1973. In addition to the proclamation of the notice individual notices were also served on the petitioners. The notices served on the petitioners and published in the locality required the interested persons to file written objections within 21 days of the publication of the notifications dated 5th and 18th July, 1973. Thus the interested persons were required to file objections within 21 days of the publication of the gazette notification, namely, 4th August, 1973, although the period provided for filing objections had already expired. All the petitioners in the two petitions except Smt. Kamal Rani, however, filed objections. These objections were considered and report under Section 5-A was submitted to the Government. These facts would show that though Section 4 (1) of the Act was not strictly complied with, the petitioners' objections were considered under Section 5-A of the Act.;