A public notice of the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is required to be given at convenient places in the locality, and this is a mandatory provision.

( 1 ) TWO writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution being C. W. No. 713-D/1963 and C. M. No. 872-D/68 were heard and disposed of together by means of a judgment dated 12th July, 1971, delivered by the learned single Judge, Tatachari, J. (as his Lordship then was ). These petitions both related to land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by means of notification dated 13th November, 1959, under Section 4 of the Act and another notification dated 13th November, 1962 under Section 6 of the Act. The land covered by the latter notification measured 9 Bighas and 18 Biswas situated in Khasra No. 359/1, situated in village Bahapur, Tehsil and District Delhi, out of this an area measuring 3 Bighas and 14 Biswas related to the two petitions.

( 2 ) THE background of the case is that M/s. Patiala Flour Mills Co. (P) Ltd. , had wanted to set up a flour mill in the State of Delhi and for this purpose they wanted to purchase some land at Okhla. Originally, they had wanted to purchase some other land measuring about 20 acres, but the same was already subject to an acquisition notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Eventually, the Ministry of Industry allowed the flour mill to be set up in plot Nos. 358 and 359 known as Basheshar Nath Garden situated in the Kalkaji Road adjoining the Okhla industrial estate. This land was included in a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but was released from acquisition. After it had been released, a 99 year lease was taken by M/s Patiala Flour Mills from the owners Shri Panna Lal son of Lala Basheshar Nath and Shri Shiv Shankar Dass son of Lala Mithan Lal and the company proceeded to set up the flour mill. On 13th November, 1959, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to an area measuring 34,070 acres which stated that the land described in the annexure to the notification was required by the Government for a public purpose, namely, the Planned Development of Delhi. It was in furtherance of this notification that a notification was issued under Section 6 acquiring the aforementioned area of 9 Bighas and 18 Biswas out of which 3 Bighas and 14 Biswas was included in the property leased by Shri Panna Lal and Shri Shiv Shankar Dass to M/s. Patiala Flour Mills Co. (P) Ltd.

( 3 ) THE acquisition proceedings were challenged by the aforementioned Writ petitions on various grounds. Firstly, it was pointed out that previously also this land had been acquired and then released. Secondly, it was pointed out that there was nothing to show that this area of 3 Bighas and 14 Biswas was required for a public purpose. These contentions were not accepted by the learned Single Judge.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, another contention raised by the petitioners was accepted. This was to the effect that the notification under Section 4 dated 13th November, 1959, was not proclaimed at convenient places in the locality in accordance with Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. It was concluded that the petitioners were not aware of the notification and hence could not file objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The counter affidavit in reply to the petition had stated that the said notification under Section 4 was duly published in the Official Gazette and a public notice of tile substance thereof was given at all convenient places in the locality. It was also stated that a very wide publicity had been given to the said notification. The learned single Judge held, following the judgment in Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074, that a public notice of the substance of the notification was to be given at convenient places in the locality and this was a mandatory provision and a non-compliance rendered the notification void and also the acquisition proceedings following the said notification. This contention was accepted by the learned single Judge who quashed the acquisition on this point.

( 5