TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 as 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. This matter came up for hearing earlier before me and my learned brother Bains J. Finding that the point involved in the petition was of importance, we decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench. That is how, we are seized of the matter. 3. The question that falls for determination may be stated thus:-- To make Section 4 notification valid, is it legally essential to g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, wherein it has been observed thus:-- The statutory intention is, therefore, clear, namely, that the giving of public notice is mandatory. If so, the notification issued under Section 4 without complying with the said mandatory direction would be void and the land acquisition proceedings taken pursuant thereto would be equally void. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations it follows that the notification under Section 4 shall be valid only when both the conditions mentioned in Section 4(1) of the Act have been complied with. 8. The next question that required determination is the point of time when the public notice of the substance of the notification has to be given at convenient places in the concerned locality. Has it to be simultaneously with or immediately after the publication of the notification in the official Gazette or can it be done any time? The contention of Mr. Tiwana, based on the provisions of Section 5A(1), that the time for filing objections would start when public notice of the substance has been given in the concerned locality, on the face of it, appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... immediately after the publication of the notification in the official Gazette. 10. The object of giving publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality is to make known to the affected persons the intention of the Government to acquire land so as to give opportunity to the landowners to file objections under Section 5A(1) of the Act against the proposed acquisition. In our country, illiterate people cannot be expected to have knowledge of the intended acquisition merely from the publication made in the official Gazette. The Legislature purposely made the provision of giving public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the concerned locality with a view more or less to give direct information of the proposed acquisition, to the affected persons. If the publication in the concerned locality is not made either simultaneous ly with or immediately after the publication in the official Gazette, then the reasonable period as provided under Section 5A(1) of the Act for filing objections, shall stand curtailed. Such could never be the intention of the Legislature. The right of filing objections cannot be made illusory or nugatory by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the gazette as also a public notice in the locality in which the property proposed to be acquired is situate. It is only when the notification is published in the Official Gazette and it is accompanied by or immediately followed by the public notice, that a person interested in the property proposed to be acquired can be regarded to have had notice of the proposed acquisition. We are entirely in agreement with the rule laid down by that decision. 11. To the same effect are the observations in Narinderjit Singh's case (supra), which are reproduced below:-- We are unable to accept such a contention. In our judgment the provisions of Section 4(1) cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in another. Section 4(1) does not contemplate any distinction between those proceedings in which in exercise of the power under Section 17(4) the appropriate Government directs that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply and where such a direction has not been made dispensing with the applicability of Section 5A. 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 publis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
