D. Falshaw, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by the State and the Collector and Estate Officer, Capital Project, Chandigarh, against the order of Grover, J., allowing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by 18 Petitioners owning land in the village of Nizampur Kumbra and quashing acquisition proceedings taken in pursuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 9th of August, 1960, for the acquisition of 30 acres of land in the Petitioner's village for public purpose described as the construction of the Sub -Jail at Chandigarh Capital.
(2.) THE preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was dated the 23rd of March, 1948. This notification was to the effect that the land covered by the notification was likely to be required to be taken by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the capital for East Punjab in the Ambala District, and it was notified that land in the locality described therein was likely to be required for the above purpose. It seems quite clear, however, that in March, 1948, all that had been decided was that the new capital was to be located somewhere in the Kharar Tehsil, of the district of Ambala and the land covered by the notification comprised all revenue estates included in the tehsil of Kharar measuring 371 square miles. It was further provided in the notification that under the powers conferred by Section 17(4) of the Act the Governor directed that the provisions of Section 5 -A, should not apply in respect of this acquisition which meant that objections from persons interested were not to be entertained. It seems, however, that in spite of the non -operation of Section 5 -A what might be described as an agitation arose among the landowners of the area with the result that in 1950 certain decisions of the Government were issued in the form of a poster or handbill in the name of the Officer on Special Duty, Ambala, with the intention of allaying the public discontent. It contained such things as indications on the lines on which compensation would be assessed for the persons whose lands were actually acquired, an undertaking that any persons actually ousted would be given other land in Kharar Tehsil of similar grade in compensation, for their acquired lands and in particular in paragraph 7 it was stated that Government had already declared that they did not intend to go beyond the 17 villages for the Capital site. By that time the actual site had been determined and the land comprised in those 17 villages was acquired under a notification duly issued under Section 6 of the Act about that time. The impugned notification came about 10 years later for the acquisition of 30 acres of land in the village of the Petitioners for the purpose of constructing the Chandigarh Sub -Jail, and the basic objection of the Petitioners to this notification under Section 6 in pursuance of a notification under Section 4 issued about 12 years earlier is that that earlier notification had exhausted itself when the lard comprised in the 17 villages actually required for the Capital site was acquired under the first notification under Section 6, and that for any further acquisitions, even in connection with the capital project, a fresh notification under Section 4 is necessary.
(3.) IN somewhat Similar circumstances a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the writ petition Vishnu Prasad Sharma and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh : A.I.R. 1962 M.P. 270, had accepted the contention of the Petitioners and quashed the acquisition proceedings by their order dated the 21st of February, 1962, and the learned Single Judge found himself in agreement with the decision. The first objection raised before the learned Single Judge, and again before us, was that a single petition by 18 different landowners was not competent, reliance being placed on the decision of this Court in The Revenue Patwaris Union Punjab v. The State of Punjab (2), in which it was held by a Division Bench, of which the learned Single Judge in this case was a member, that an omnibus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on behalf of all the Patwaris of the State by the Revenue Patwaris Union, Punjab, challenging the authority and jurisdiction of the District Boards in the entire State to impose profession tax could not be entertained. I fully agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that that case had no application whatever in the present case, and I am of the opinion that where a notification is issued for the acquisition of land in a particular village all or any of the persons affected by the notification can jointly file a petition challenging the validity of the notification. I find it somewhat surprising that this point was pressed at all, since even if the petition could only be entertained as being on behalf of any one of the Petitioners the effect in the event of its success would be the quashing of the whole acquisition proceedings once the notification was held to be invalid. Before dealing with the main point I set out the relevant provisions of the Act - -;