MAHESH GROVER,J - (1.) THE petitioners have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 16.6.2003 by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Revenue Department expressing the intention of the government to acquire land for a public purpose, namely, "for development/beautification on the northeast of "Raja Harsh Ka Tilla", a centrally protected monument at Thanesar by the Government of India, Archaeological Survey of India". The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 11.7.2003. Thereafter, the government issued notification under Section 6 of the Act.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners, in nut-shell, is that there has been violation of Section 4 of the Act, in-as-much-as, substance of the notification was not affixed at a proper place and this has resulted in gross violation of the provisions of the Act, as a result of which the entire acquisition proceedings must fail. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in their written statement, have pleaded that there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act as proper publication was done in the official gazette and two daily newspapers, i.e., the Hindustan Times (English) dated 26.6.2003 and The Punjab Kesri (Hindi) dated 27.6.2003. They have further averred that munadi was also got done in the locality by beat of drum as on 26.6.2003 and this fact has not been denied by the petitioners themselves as they have placed on record a copy of munadi report as Annexure P-7. The respondents have pleaded that in view of this, there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition on this ground.
(3.) DURING the course of proceedings, Union of India was also impleaded as party respondent. It has filed a separate written statement and has supported the acquisition by stating that there was sufficient compliance of Section 4 of the Act and the petitioners cannot be permitted to obstruct the acquisition proceedings.;