I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) THE facts which have led to the filing of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the two notifications, dated December 10, 1973 and December 9, 1976, issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are as follows.
(2.) THE land of the Petitioners sought to be acquired is located in village Sherpur Kalan, admittedly a suburb of Ludhiana Town. The State Government, - -vide notification under Section 4 of the Act, Annexure P. 1, expressed its intention to acquire 235.13 Acres of land at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the setting up of a residential urban estate. Through another notification under Section 6 of the Act, Annexure p. 3, the State Government made the requisite declaration that the land specified therein was required for the abovesaid public purpose, that is, the setting up of residential urban estate. It is the admitted position that though this notification binder Section 6 was issued a day earlier to the expiry of three years period from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, yet no other step whatsoever was taken by the -authorities concerned for the completion of the acquisition proceedings under the Act so much so, not even a notice under Section 9 of the Act inviting claims of the persons interested in the land to be acquired was issued nor any step worth the name towards the realisation of the compensation to be awarded for the acquired land was taken. Undisputably the Petitioners continue to be in possession of the area notified. The Petitioners further allege that the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was never published at any place in the locality where the land to be acquired is situated and only a report, Annexure p. 2, containing the contents of the said notification was recorded by the Patwari of the village in his Raznamcha Waqiati on March 15, 1974. Even in this report no mention has been made as to whether the substance of the said notification has at all been published or proclaimed in the locality, what to talk of the mode and manner of the same. It is on these premises that the Petitioners assail the above two notifications, Annexures p. 1 and p. 3 with the assertions that (i) the said two notifications were without jurisdiction because there was 'no possible need' of the land for the setting up of an urban estate and the proceedings were commenced not for the purpose for which they may under the law be commenced, but for a collateral purpose, viz., to acquire the land in future at the rates pegged down to the date on which the notification under Section 4 was issued and thus the condition precedent to the exercise of the power to acquire the the lands under the Act being absent, all the proceedings including the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 respectively, of the Act were invalid, and (ii) there being no compliance of Section 4 of the Act, the whole action of the Respondents has been rendered void. So far as the first challenge launched on behalf of the Petitioners is concerned, the same is sought to be met in the form of a preliminary objection stated in the return filed on behalf of the Respondents to the effect that the Court cannot go into the question as to whether the need or the public purpose specified in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure p. 3) is genuine or not and thus the bona fides of the Government's action cannot be gone into. So far as the second attack on behalf of the Petitioners is concerned, it is stated that the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the locality in accordance with the law. When was it done, however, is not disclosed. So far as the assertion of the Petitioners with regard to the non -taking of any other step towards the completion or finalisation of the proceedings in the form of the assessment of the market price or the compensation of the land and their being still in possession of the land is concerned, it is stated in paragraph 14 of the return that the possession of the land will be taken after completing all the formalities. No mention has been made as to what steps have been taken by the Respondents to complete the said formalities or the stage they have reached in the completion of those formalities.
(3.) THE fact that the above -noted first ground of attack is available to the Petitioners in law, cannot be seriously disputed. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ambalal Purshottam etc. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others : A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1223, while examining an almost similar contention after holding that in the facts and circumstances of that case there were no good grounds to doubt the bona fides of the purpose of acquisition of the land, observed as follows: We are not hereby to be understood as suggesting that after issue of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 the appropriate Government would be justified in allowing the matters to drift and to take in hand the proceedings for assessment of compensation whenever they think it proper to do. It is intended by the scheme of the Act that the notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act must be followed by a proceeding for determination of compensation without any unreasonable delay.;