- (1.) THIS is a writ-petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for impugning two notifications (Annexures 'a' and 'b'), under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'act') published simultaneously in the Punjab Govt. Gazette dated Sept. 23, 1969. In the notification under Section 6, there was a direction to the Collector under Section 17 (2) (c) of the Act that he should proceed to take possession of the land specified in the notification.
(2.) THE aforesaid notifications are being impugned on various grounds, but only one of them has now been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me. It is urged that no public notice of the substance of the notification (Annexure A), as required by the mandatory provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act, was published by the Collector (Respondent No. 2) at convenient places in the locality where the land in question is situated. It is further urged that on account of non-compliance with this peremptory requirement of law, the entire proceedings founded on the notification were null and void. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074, and Satnam Singh's case (1969) 71 Pun LR 345. This ground of challenge is incorporated in paragraph 3 (ii) of the writ-petition.
(3.) IN the affidavit filed by Shri Kesho Ram, Director of Food and Supplies and Joint Secretary to Government, Punjab, on behalf of Respondent (No. 1), it is stated that paragraph 3 (ii) concerns the Collector. In reply to this allegation of the petitioner, that the notice under Section 4 (1) was not published in the locality, Shri Amrik Singh Pooni, Collector, in his affidavit stated: "denied for want of knowledge". The responsibility for the publication of the substance of the notification, under Section 4, at convenient places in the locality, has been cast by law on the Collector. Consequently, this evasive denial "for want of knowledge" could be taken an implied admission. Notwithstanding this evasive denial I gave an opportunity to the respondent to produce the necessary departmental records to show that the public notice of the notification in the locality had actually been given, as required by Section 4 (1 ). Today, the departmental records have been produced for my perusal and my attention has been drawn to a report, dated October 11, 1969 the Patwari's Roznamcha, in the last sentence of which it is mentioned that 'loud proclamation has been got done in the village through Rup Singh'. It is absolutely wrong to say that this proclamation was of the substance of the notification under Section 4. It is proper to isolate the last sentence of the report out of its context. The report, read as a whole, shows that it relates only to the fact of delivery of possession to the acquiring department by the revenue authorities. Thus the allegation made in paragraph 3 (ii) of the writ-petition, viz. , that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality is correct.;