Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) RATTAN Singh and another have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), copies Annexures "P -1" and "P -2" respectively. The facts of the case may briefly be stated thus: The Petitioners are small landowners in village Nijjarpur, Tahsil and District Amritsar, and own about 51 Kanals each of agricultural land. It is stated in the petition that Respondent No. 1 issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, to the effect that the land in the locality, specified in the notification was needed by the Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for allotment of house sites to the landless workers in the rural areas. Later on, the Collector, Amritsar, Respondent No. 2, issued notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 26th June, 1975. In the said notification, it has been stated that the land specified in the said notification was needed by the Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the allotment of house sites to the landless workers in the rural areas. As the two notifications also included the land belonging to the Petitioners, the present petition has been filed challenging the legality of the said two notifications.
(2.) THE only point urged before us by Shri M. L. Sarin, Learned Counsel for Petitioners, was that the impugned notification issued under Section 4 of the Act is liable to be struck down as the mandatory provisions of Section 4(1) have not been complied with. According to the Learned Counsel, the notification under Section 4 would be legal only if two conditions are satisfied, i. e., (i) that the notification is published in the official Gazette; and (ii) the Collector gives publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality. Further, the Learned Counsel submits that if the publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality is not made simultaneously with the publication in the official Gazette, then also the notification would be liable to be struck down. The sum and substance of the contention of Mr. Sarin, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is that where after the publication of the notification in the official Gazette, publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality is not given simultaneously or immediately, then the notification as well as all the acquisition proceedings are illegal. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel relied on two decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh and Ors. v. The State of U.P. : A.I.R 1973 S. C. 552 and State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib : A.I.R. 1973 S. C 2361. Reliance was also placed on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Sat Dev v. The State of Punjab : (1975) 77 P.L.R. 747. On the other hand, it was contended by the Learned Counsel appearing for the State that the publication of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality could legally by done within 30 days of the publication of a notice in the official Gazette, and that it was, under the law, not necessary to make publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality simultaneously or immediately after the publication in the official Gazette. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find that the point involved in this petition is of considerable importance and deserves to be decided by a larger Bench. Accordingly, I direct that the papers of this case be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for appropriate orders
(3.) MANY writ petitions have been admitted on the point involved in this petition and it would be desireable if this matter is heard by a larger Bench in the week commencing 22nd March, 1976. ORDER OF THE FULL BENCH Prem Chand Jain, J. (23rd April 1976);