Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification dated May 18, 1974 (Annexure P -1) under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that they own land (sic) 13 Kanals 17 Marlas in the area of village Sitin, Tehsil and (sic) Bhatinda. A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued by the Stat Government for acquiring the aforesaid land alongwith other lands on May 18, 1974. It is alleged that substance of the aforesaid notification was not published in the locality simultaneously with the notification as required by section 4 of the Act.
(2.) THE petitioners have, therefore, challenged the aforesaid notification. The writ petition has been concerted by the State.
(3.) THE first contention of Mr. S.S. Kang, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that substance of the notification was not published in the locality as required by section 4, mentioning the fact of acquisition etc. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that a notice was given to that effect. He has referred to Annexure R. 1, the report of the Patwari in rapat roznamcha for that purpose. I have heard the contention of the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through Annexure R. 1. (sic) however, find that the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners has substance. In the rapat roznamcha (Annexure R. 1) it is stated as follows : - - Notification 5750 -51B(1) - -74/12/30 dated 18 -5 -1974 under section, Industries Department. In compliance with the above orders, the publicity of the notification under section 4 has been caused in sound voice and by beat of drum through the Chowkidars of both the villages and one copy of the notification has been pasted on the outer wall of the Patwar Khana for public notice. From the perusal of the report, it is not clear what was announced by the person who made the proclamation. It is also not stated at which Patwar Khana the public notice was pasted. The notification admittedly relates to the lands situated in several villages. This very report talks of publication in two villages. It is not mentioned that the notice was pasted at Patwar Khana of village Sibian. The aforesaid report is vague and indefinite. It was the duty of the official concerned to have mentioned specifically as to what was pronounced so that the Court could find out whether the provisions of section 4 of the Act had been complied with. In my view, no publication of the notice was made as required by section 4 of the Act. The next contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the publicity of the notification should have been made simultaneously with the publication of the notification in the official gazette. He further says that in the present case, it is admitted by the respondents that the publicity was caused 19 days after the publication of the notification. I also find substance in this contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Section 4 relates to publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon and section 5 -A to filing and hearing of objections. Section 5 A says that objections by the person interested in the land may be filed within a period of thirty days after the issuance of the notification. In case the publicity is effected after expiry of a period of 19 days, it may not be possible for the person concerned to file objections in such a short time. On reading the aforesaid sections, it is clear that the publicity should be effected simultaneously with the notification under section 4 of the Act. In this view I am fortified by the observations of the Supreme Court in Narindrajit Singh v. The State of U.P., : (1973)75 P.L.R. 86 wherein it was observed by A.N. Grover J., while speaking for the Court, as follows: - - It lays down in unequivocal and clear terms that both things have to be simultaneously done under section 4(1), i.e., a notification has to be published in the official gazette that the land is likely to be seeded for any public purpose and the Collector has to cause notice to be given of he substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality in which the land is situated In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the publicity was not effected as required by section 4 of the Act. For the reasons recorded above, I accept the writ petition with costs and quash the impugned notification. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/ -.;