V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 9429, 10451, 10452, 10478, 10639, 13773 and 15670 of 1992 and C. W. P. Nos. 2970 and 8756 of 1993. The challenge in these connected petitions is to notifications dated 27. 11. 1991 and 12. 6. 1992 issued Under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act. In these petitions, even though a number of grounds to challenge the aforesaid notifications has been taken the only point pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing is that the respondents never published the notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 in the locality as required under the Land Acquisition Act and as such the petitioners could not file the objections, thus depriving them, of the valuable right granted to them under the Statute. The averments made in the writ petition with regard to the non-publication of the notifications, as contained in para 21 of the petition are as follows: "respondent No. 1 and 2 never published the notifications Under Section 4 and 6 in the locality as is required under the land Acquisition Act and as such, petitioners could not file objections Under Section 5-A of the said Act, thus valuable rights of the petitioner (s) have been taken away. " This averments of the petitioners has been categorically denied and in a corresponding para of the written statement, it has been pleaded that the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were duly complied with. The substance of the notifications Under Sections 4 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 27. 11. 1991. Further, the substance of the said notification was published in a newspaper in circulation in the locality including the Tribune dated 11. 12. 1991, Jansatta (Hindi) dated 9. 12. 1991 and Punjabi Tribune dated 9. 12. 1991. The notification was also given due publicity by pasting of the substance of the notification at a convenient place in the locality as well as by beat of drum. Munadi was conducted in the locality by Achhar Singh son of Swaran Singh by beat of drum on 10-2. 1992 vide report roznamcha No. 1913 dated 10. 2. 1992. a copy of the notification was pasted on 10. 2. 1992 on the wall (Am-Rasta) in the Main Bazar, Manimajra. The substance of the notification Under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 10. 1. 1992. The substance of the notification was also given vide publicity in the newspaper in circulation in the locality including the Punjabi Tribune dated 26. 6. 1992, Dainik Tribune dated 27. 6. 1992 and the Tribune dated 26. 6. 1992. Substance of the said notification was also given wide publicity by beat of drum by Achhar Singh son of Swaran Singh on 20. 6. 1992.
(2.) A copy of the notification was also pasted on the wall (Aam-Rasta) in the Main Bazar, Manimajra. The substance of the notification was also given due publicity by way of beat of drum as well as by pasting a copy thereof on the wall as is evidenced by the Report Roznamcha No. 1914 dated 20. 6. 1992. Confronted with the averments made in para 21 of the written statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners has chosen to file replication through C. M. No. 1548 of 1994 at the time when the matter was part-heard. This replication vide orders passed today, was placed on record and was ordered to be taken up with the main case. In para 21 of the replication, it has been pleaded that since village Manimajra is a big village, it was incumbent upon the authorities to give publicity of the notification at some convenient place and a detailed report in this regard should have made so that it could be proved that the mandatory provisions of the Act were complied with. A copy of the Roznamcha has been annexed with the replication as annexure P-3, which according to the averments made by the petitioners, does not give any details about the places where the proclamation was made. The person, who is alleged to have made the publication by beat of drum has denied that he had made any such publicity and has further mentioned that Patwari had got his thumb impressions on the blank papers. A copy of the affidavit of Achhar Singh has been attached as Annexure P-4. It would be seen from the pleadings of the parties as quoted above that initially, when the petition was filed, the pleadings were such so as to create an impression that nothing as contained in Sections 4 and 6, was done and it was a case of complete non-compliance of the provisions of publication. However, when the written statement was filed, averments were made by way of replication to pin-point the violations of the provisions of the Act which at this stage, cannot be permitted by this Court. If a small procedural lapse, pointing out-non-compliance of the procedure was thereof in the very first instance, it should have been brought to the notice of this Court. At this stage, it is very difficult for the respondents to rebut the averments made in the replication. That apart a perusal of annexure P-3 which is a copy of Roznamcha dated 10. 2. 1992 clearly shows that as per the orders of the Land Acquisition Officer, U. T. Chandigarh, 56. 14 acres of land was to be acquired for the public purpose namely, the establishment of a Nursery and all the khasra nos. of the land sought to be acquired were given.
(3.) NOT only this, it has also been mentioned that a copy of the notification had been pasted on the wall of the Dharamshala in Manimajra and that proclamation has been done by beat of empty drum in the streets of village Manimajra. It is thus, apparent that the proclamation was done at prominent places and the only objection with regard to a minor lapse of publication, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it has not been proved by the respondents as to at which prominent place, the proclamation was done, is if no importance. No notice can be taken at this stage of the affidavit given by Achhra Singh the authenticity of which has been seriously challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Otherwise too, in face of the contents of a copy of Roznamcha, it will be very difficult to return to a finding that Achhra Singh had only signed on the asking of somebody and as a matter of fact he had not done any proclamation by beat of empty drum Even otherwise, this Court is ill equipped to go into the question of fact which has been seriously disputed and which needs recording of evidence to reach to a definite conclusion. Reliance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1971 Revenue Law Reporter 1 (S. C.), that it is not a rule of general application that the High Court cannot go into the question of fact in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would not apply. It is-true that the High Court is not debarred from going into the question of fact but it depends upon the facts of each case and when on the material placed before the High Court, no definite finding can be recorded the parties have necessarily to be relegated to an appropriate forum.;