R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners are impugning some notifications purporting to have been issued on the 20th February, 1970 and 9th September, 1970 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), respectively.
(2.) SEVERAL grounds of challenge were taken in the petition. In view of the return filed by the respondents, however, only one ground has been pressed at the time of arguments The same is that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 (Annexures Rule 1 & Rule 2 to the written statement) are invalid, because they do not give sufficient description of the land and the locality, so as to give notice to the petitioners that so much of their land is being acquired. It is argued that the result of this omission was that the petitioners were unable to prefer any objections under Section 5 -A of the Act. It may be noted that Section 4 of the Act says that the land in the locality is to be described The object is that the persons affected should come to know from the notification itself, without reference to any extraneous thing, that so much of their land is likely to be acquired, so that they may, if they so desire, prefer objections to the acquisition under Section 5 -A. Further, Section 6 enjoins that when the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5 -A(2) that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its order. The use of the word 'particular' is significant it means that in the declaration issued under Section 6, it is essential to give so much particulars of the land as are sufficient to enable the owner of the land or the person interested in it to know with reasonable certainty whether or not and how much of his property is being covered by the declaration. It is to be seen how far these mandatory requirements of the law have been complied with in the instant case. The notification under Section 4 of the Act (Annexure Rule 1 to the written statement) simply gives this description of the land: JUDGEMENT_27_LAWS(P&H)11_1971.htm Exactly the same description, without any addition, has been repeated in the declaration under Section 8 of the Act (Annexure 'A' to the writ -petition).
(3.) It was contended before me on behalf of the petitioners that the mere note in these notifications, saving that "the strip of land had been demarcated at site" was not a sufficient compliance with the law. Reliance has been placed on Narendrajit v. State of U.P. : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 806.;