IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.236 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.8.2009 Krishan Kumar. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana. ----- ORDER: 1. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against acquisition proceedings in pursuance of notifications dated July 19, 1985 and July 14, 1986 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). The land was acquired for construction of a warehouse. 2. Grievance of the appellant was that the acquisition proceedings were illegal for want of proper publication, arbitrary rejection of objections under Section 5A of the Act and discrimination in not acquiring the land on both sides of the existing warehouse which was more suited. LPA No.236 of 2007 3. The stand of the appellant was contested by filing a written statement, to the effect that due publication was made in the newspapers and official gazette as well as through munadi and the appellant filed objections, which were duly considered. The land of the appellant was more suitable for a compact warehouse. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the plea of want of publication could not be entertained, as the appellant filed objections, which were duly considered. In any case, the publication had been duly made, as evidenced by particulars of locality being duly entered in the Roznamcha. As regards suitability of the land of the appellant for acquisition, it was observed that acquiring authority had the competence to select the land which was considered most suitable, unless the decision was not unfair or arbitrary. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant repeated the submissions which were made before the learned Single Judge. He relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Collector (Distt.Magistrate), Allahabad and another v. Raja Ram Jaiswal AIR 1985 SC 1622 in support of his submission that publication was mandatory. He also relies upon judgments of this Court Ghansham Dass Goyal and others v. The State of Haryana and another 1982 PLJ 146 and Jati v. The State of Haryana and another 1986 PLJ 23 in support of his submission 2 LPA No.236 of 2007 that publication should be in the locality so that the affected parties could acquire knowledge about the acquisition. 7. Learned counsel for the State supported the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 8. We are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. No doubt, the publication is mandatory, as laid down in the judgment relied upon, but in the present case, there is a finding of fact that publication was duly made. Moreover, the appellant filed objections, which shows that he acquired information about the acquisition proceedings. As regards suitability of the land of the appellant, two views may be possible, as to which land may be better suited. In absence of any malafides, it is not possible to hold that selection of land of the appellant for acquisition was not permissible. 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 13, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3