Judgment

SHAH, J. :- This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab dismissing in limine a petition filed by the three appellants in this appeal.

2. The third appellant purchased from one Hari Ram a plot of land approximately 500 sq. yds. at Bhatinda and applied on August 4, 1960 for permission of the local Municipal Committee to construct a house on that plot of land. Sanction was granted on August 10, 1960, and the third appellant constructed a residential building on the land. The first appellant also purchased 500 sq. yds. from Hari Ram on April 4, 1961 and submitted an application with plans to the Municipal Committee for constructing a house. The application was granted on August 9, 1963. The second appellant purchased a plot measuring 268 3/4 sq. yds. on November 5, 1962 adjacent to the land purchased by the first appellant from one Tarsem Singh who in his turn had purchased it from Hari Ram. He also applied for constructing a structure and that was sanctioned by the local Municipal Committee on August 9, 1963.

3. A notification had been issued by the State Government of Punjab under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on June 26, 1959 declaring that land specified in the Schedule to the notification was needed for a public purpose i.e., for construction of Mall Road leading from the Railway Station Bhatinda to the Main Road known as Goniana-Bhatinda Road. In the schedule to the notification the land was described as Khasra No. 2030 and 11 sets of persons were shown as owners of different pieces of land. The aggregate area of the land likely to be needed was shown as 15 bighas and 5 biswas, and Hari Ram was shown as owner of two pieces out of the land. By an amendment of the notification published on July 31, 1959, the holding of Hari Ram was shown in the aggregate as 8 bighas and 15 biswas. A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the lands were needed for a public purpose was issued on January 6, 1960 and published on January 15, 1960. The Schedule to the notification was in the same form as it was originally published in the notification under Section 4 and modified on July 31, 1959. It was recited in paragraph 3 of the notification that the plans of the land may be inspected in the office of the Bhatinda District and of the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda.

4. In the view of the Municipality of Bhatinda the demarcation of the land according to the plan published with the notification under Section 6 did not tally with the situation on the site. The matter was accordingly referred to the Public Works Department of the State. Later the Municipal Committee resolved to reduce the width of the road which was originally intended to be 100 feet to 60 feet. On February 15, 1965 the Municipal Committee resolved to abandon the scheme for it appeared to the Municipal Committee that even with the reduced width of 60 feet certain Municipal installations and lands used for public purposes were likely to be included in that road width. There was correspondence between the Municipal Committee and the local Government under which the alignment of the road was sought to be modified. The Government of Punjab, however, insisted that the Municipal Committee should proceed with the acquisition and directed the Collector to issue the requisite notices and to make his award of compensation.

5. The appellants then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab on December 16, 1968, alleging that the substance of the notification under Section 4 and its corrigendum was not published in the locality by the Collector; that the proposed land which was sought to be acquired for the Mall Road was not demarcated at site under Section 4 (2) of the Act; that the procedure laid down in S. 5-A of the Act was not followed; that the notification was vague and since the land sought to be acquired was not fully described in the notification, the interested persons could not file their objections against th