IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15965 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.03.2011 Manoj Kumar Bishnoi …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to assail a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 16.3.2010(P2), proposing to acquire land owned by the petitioner measuring 3 acres, for a public purpose, namely, ‘for expansion of Modern Computerized Inter State Check Post at village Gumjal, tehsil Abohar, district Ferozepur’. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 6.8.2010(P4) finally ordering acquisition of the above said land. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court on 8.9.2010:- “It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that substance of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Civil Writ Petition No.15965 of 2010 Acquisition Act, 1894 on 16.3.2010, was not published in the locality where land under acquisition is situated. To say so, reference has been made to a copy of Rapat Roznamcha (Annexure P5), wherein it is nowhere mentioned that the notification was published or displayed at any conspicuous place in the locality where land is situated.” Thereafter, written statement was filed by the respondents wherein an attempt was made to show that the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was in knowledge of the petitioner. To say so, it was averred that the petitioner’s general power of attorney holder Suparam Bishnoi attended a meeting convened for price fixation of the land, however, he did not sign the proceedings taken in that meeting. It is further stated that Rapat Roznamcha (P5) was entered on 11.5.2010, however, no specific answer was given to the averment made by the petitioner in paragraph No.5 of the writ petition, which reads thus:- “5. That after the petitioner suddenly came to know of the notification u/s 4 & 6 for the public purpose as mentioned above, he enquired in the various departments and also in the office of the village Patwari to enquire as to whether any public notice of the notification was made in the village or not, he obtained a copy of the Rappat Roznamcha from the Patwari dated 20.8.2010. Copy of the same is being filed herewith as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. It is interesting to note here that the Patwari has made an entry of the notification u/s 4 dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure P-3) in the Rapat Roznamcha on 11.5.2010. This is 25 days after the publication of the notification even if the date of 16.4.2010 is taken as the date of 2 Civil Writ Petition No.15965 of 2010 the Section 4 notification. The respondents are trying to mislead the petitioner in as much as the petitioner was given a copy of notification u/s 4 which was dated 16.3.2010 whereas the petitioner received a copy of the notification u/s 4 from the Punjab Govt. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 16th April, 2010. The notification u/s 4 is illegal and without jurisdiction as no publicity has been given to the same as per the mandatory requirement of Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The relevant provision of Section 4 is reproduced here below for ready reference: “Section 4 Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. - (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in the official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the notification.” A perusal of the above shows that the public notice of the substance of the notification u/s 4 is a mandatory requirement of law. It has been held by this Hon’ble High 3 Civil Writ Petition No.15965 of 2010 Court in State of Punjab vs. Des Raj Mehta 1991(1) Punjab Law Reporter 139 that the purpose of the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality is not only that the land owner can file objection but it is also to enable and permit the State Government to enter upon the land for the purpose of survey and for taking levels or to dig or bore into the sub soil etc. which is clear from a reading of sub section 2 of the section 4 of the Act. This Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions of section 4 are mandatory and also that in case of non-compliance of mandatory provisions, no prejudice need be shown. It has also been held in Satnam Singh vs. State of Punjab 1969 Volume LXXI 345 that the requirements of Section 4 are mandatory and non-compliance therewith is fatal to the entire acquisition proceedings. The object of this mandatory requirement is two fold, (1) to intimate the land owner or the occupier of the land, intention of the officer of the acquiring department to enter upon the land and (2) to enable him to file objections if any against the proposed acquisition.” In paragraph No.5 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated by the petitioner that the substance of the notification was not published in the village by way of proclamation or through any other manner. It is further stated in this paragraph that copy of the notification was also not affixed near to the land under acquisition or any conspicuous place in the village. To the averment made above, no reply was filed by the respondents. Taking note of the same, on 27.1.2011, after reading the reply, it was observed that this Court is tentatively satisfied with the objection raised. Mr.Salil Sagar, Addl.A. G. Punjab was directed to get 4 Civil Writ Petition No.15965 of 2010 instructions. Today in Court, Roznamcha Waqaiti of village has been produced before us. Perusal thereof indicates that contents of the notification are entered in the Roznamcha Waqaiti, however, it is not stated in the roznamcha that any proclamation of the notification was done in the village or its copies were affixed at the conspicuous place/(s) in the village or near to the land under acquisition. Affidavit of Chowkidar of the village or any other official stating that proclamation was done in the village has not been brought on record despite an opportunity granted. As per established law, compliance to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is mandatory and it has been held that if there is no compliance, the acquisition is liable to be quashed. It is clear from the record that without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.8.2010. Under the circumstances, the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is quashed. The Land Acquisition Collector may proceed with the acquisition proceedings as per law in terms of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 16.3.2010. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 31.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 5