R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned acquisition proceedings and the award, dated 28th February, 1969 of the Land Acquisition Collector ( Respondent No. 2) with regard to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the plot belonging to the petitioners (M/s. New Ludhiana Industrial Corporation, Mandi Kesar Ganjf Ludhiana).
(2.) THE undisputed facts are that by a deed dated January, 20, 1965, registered on 21st January, 1965, the petitioners (who are a contractual partnership) purchased 16 kanals and 11 marlas of land in the revenue estate of Sherpur Kalan (a suburb of Ludhiana), comprising of Khasra Nos. 47/18, 47/19, 47/22 and 47/23 for an approximate cost of Rs. 40,000/ - from the Sherpur Small Scale Co -operative Industrialists Co -operative House Building Society (Respondent No. 4). After the purchase, the petitioners invested approximately Rs. 25,000/ - for sinking a tubewell in the plot and for constructing a compound wall and a room. They also constructed a shed for installation of machinery. A Chowkidar of the petitioners' firm remains present on the plot all the 24 hours and a sign board bearing the name of the petitioners' firm is also affixed at the entrance gate. On June, 16th 1967 a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') purporting to have been issued by the Punjab Government On June 3, 1967, was published in the Punjab Government Gazette (This is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition). In this notification, it was stated that about 100 acres of land from the revenue estate of village Sherpur Kalan in had bast No. 176 was needed by the Punjab Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely; for the setting up of an industrial Urban Estate. The land of the petitioners, measuring 18.25 acres, is also situated in the revenue estate bearing had bast No. 176. This was followed by publication of another notification (Annexure 'B'). The Land Acquisition Collector then gave bis award (annexure 'C') on February 28th 1969. It is alleged in the petition that throughout these proceedings the petitioners did not receive any notice, nor did they acquire any knowledge of these acquisition proceedings. It is further alleged that the Land Acquisition Collector deliberately kept the petitioners in dark though he and his agents had come to know that the land in dispute had been purchased by the petitioners from respondent: No. 4. In this connection, it is alleged that the mutation No. 2660 of this purchase was entered in the Patwari's register on November 6, 1967. It was, however, subsequently cancelled. It is further stated that a copy of this sale deed by which the petitioners purchased the land in question had been produced before the Land Acquisition Collector as proof of the market value of another piece of land that was being acquired and in respect of which another award was given by the Collector on 22nd October, 1968 (A copy of the award is Annexure 'D' to the writ petition). The validity of notification under section 4(1) of the Act is being challenged on the ground that it was vague and did not contain sufficient particulars of the land likely to be acquired and it is alleged that the omission to give particulars in the notification under section 4 had highly prejudiced the petitioners who could not prefer any objections under section 5 -A of the Act for want of notice. The notification under section 4 is being further impeached on the ground that its substance was not published at convenient places in the locality. In the return filed by Shri Banwari Lal Kakar, Secretary to the Government, and also in the affidavit filed by Shri M.R. Bhagat, Land Acquisition Collector it is admitted that mutation No. 2660 was entered in the mutation register but was thereafter scored out. It is alleged that in none of the revenue records, the petitioners were shown to be owners or in possession of the land in question and that was why no notice was issued to them regarding these acquisition proceedings. It is further admitted that there is a tubewell, a room and compound wall in the land in dispute. It is however, averred that the land of the petitioners was included in the 100 acres which according to the notification under section 4, was being acquired for a public purpose. It is asserted that the substance of that notification was duly proclaimed in the locality and objections were invited from the land -owners, and considered.
(3.) THE first question to be determined is : whether the respondents had deliberately , from mala fide motives, refrained from issuing any notice to the petitioners of these acquisition proceedings. In this connection, some material dates may be noted. The plot, as already mentioned, was purchased by the petitioners by a registered deed on 20th January , 1965 and the mutation in respect of that purchase was entered in the Patwari's register on 6th November, 1967 and was later on cancelled. Notification under Section 4 was published in l.e Government Gazette on 16th June 1967, while the notification under section 6 was published on 3rd January , 1969. Subsequently, a fresh mutation with regard to the purchase was entered in favour of the petitioners and was attested on 3rd December, 1969, that is, long after the publication of the notification under section 6 It is thus clear that on the date of the issue and publication of the notifications under sections 4 and 6, the petitioners were not entered as owners of the plots in question in the revenue records. The mere fact that a copy of this deed was produced before the and Acquisition Collector in another proceedings, does not necessarily show that the Land Acquisition Collector or the functionaries in his office were aware of the purchase of this land by the petitioners. There is, therefore, no mala fide involved in the failure of the respondents to issue any notice to the petitioners regarding these acquisition proceedings. The second question on which the fate of the case hinges, is, whether the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is invalid for the reason that sufficient particulars of the land likely to be acquired are not mentioned in it And, if so, has that defect been cured by the publication of the Government's intention to acquire particular plots, at convenient places in the locality and also by the mention of all the particulars of the land to be acquired in the notification issued under section 6 of the Act ? A reading of the impugned notification under section 4 (Annexure 'A') would show that the only particulars given in it of the locality and the land likely to be acquired are : that an area of 100 acres out of had bast No. 176, in village Sherpur Kalan is needed for a public purpose. It is common ground that the total area of this village is 984 acres. Since the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Smt. Gunwant Kaur and others v. Municipal Committee Bhatinda : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 802, it is settled that if the notification issued and published under section 4 does not set out sufficient information giving the notice to the owners of the lands that their properties are intended to be compulsorily acquired, then not only the notification but all the subsequent proceedings founded on it, become invalid, As observed in Satnam Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1969) 71 P.L.R. 345 section 4 of the Act peremptorily requires the doing of two things : (a) The publication of a notification in the official Gazette by the Government that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose; and (b) public notice of the substance of such notification by the Collector at convenient places in the locality. The chief object of these mandatory requirements is to give notice to the persons interested and thus enable them to file objections, if any, against the proposed acquisition. ;