D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) Facts : In these group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the acquisition of land for the purpose of Haldia urban Complex through a notice published in 'Ganasakti' on 28th February, 1997 on various grounds. Submission on behalf of the Petitioners :
(2.) The first ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have submitted their objection to the notification under Section 4(1) published in 'Ganasakit'. Under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act), it was incumbent on the respondents to give a hearing to the petitioners with regard to their objections. In case no hearing is given, in that event, the entire proceeding would fail and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act would be invalid and no further proceedings for acquisition could be undertaken. It is further contended that the petitioners are not aware as to whether Section 4(1) notification was ever published in the Gazette or in any other two newspapers as contemplated in the Act. It is further contended that notice under Section 9(l)(2) of the Act was not issued and no hearing was ever given thereunder and as such the award of compensation is irregular and illegal. He has taken various other points and had cited following decisions in support of his contentions : Uday Kaushisk v. The L.A. Collector & others, AIR 1988 Delhi 101 ; Devireddy Venkatasubbareddy & others v. Dist. Collector, Nellore & another, AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 124 ; Aflatton & others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2077 ; Munshi Singh & others v. Union of India & others, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1150 ; A. Thippaiah & others v. State of Karnataka & others, AIR 1998 Karnataka, 70 ; Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakat v. State of Gujarat & others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1549 ; Pran Jivan Jaitha v. State of W.B. & others, AIR 1974 Calcutta 210 and State of Gujarat & another v. Patel Chatugbhai Narshirnbhai & others, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 629. But the above decisions would not be of any help if he is unsuccessful on his first point with regard to the objections submitted by the petitioners. Submission on behalf of the Respondents :
(3.) Mr. Roy Chaudhuri, however, points out that no objection was ever submitted. Therefore, there was no scope for giving any hearing under Section 5A of the Act. As such the foundation of the petitioners is based wholly on misconceived notion without being supported by any fact. He also points out that the notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 1st January, 1997 at pages 5 to 10. It was again published in 'Ganasakti' on 28th February, 1997 and 'Asian Age' on 1st March, 1997. It was also published in local newspapers on 25th April, 1997. Therefore, the notification was validly published. He has also raised various other points, which need not be gone into within the scope of these writ petitions. Locus standi :;