- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Shri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Vinay Malaviya, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents No. 1,2 and 3.
(2.) THE notification dated 19th June, 1982, issued by the Collector, Saharanpur under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by and applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter called the Act, published in the U. P. Gazette dated 30th October, 1982, a copy whereof is annexure-4 to the petition, is under chal lenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principal ground on which the notification is attacked, as contained in paragraph 11 of the petition, is that the Collector, Saharanpur, respondent No. 2, did not give public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality where the land sought to be ac quired is situated. In reply to the above assertions of the petitioners it is stated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1,2 and 3 that apart from making publication in the Gazette publicity for the land to be acquired was made by beat of drums and also by affixing a copy of the notification at conspicuous places near the land. Thus, all the formalities as con templated under Section 4 (1) of the Act were observed by giving publicity of the said notification.
(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit petitioners reiterate their stand taken in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. They further state that averments made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit are false and vague. They also point out that the contesting respon dents have not given even the date when the beat of drum was done in the locality and the date of affixation of the copy of the notifica tion at conspicuous places near the land. The question whether the provisions of Section 4 (1) with regard to the public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the concerned locality is disputed by the parties.;