Judgment

DUTT, J. :- In these appeals and writ petitions, the appellants and the petitioners have challenged the validity of the acquisition of their land by the State of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land for industrial purpose at Gurgaon under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUDA). Although, both in the appeals and in the writ petitions the validity of acquisition has been challenged, we propose to deal with the appeals first.

2. The appeals are directed against the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants questioning the validity of the acquisition of their land and praying for the quashing of such acquisition.

3. The first ground of attack to the acquisition, as urged by Mr. Lalit, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 1984, is the non-publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the locality of the land sought to be acquired. It is true that Section 4(1) enjoins that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. It is, however, pre-eminently a question of fact. The allegation of the appellants as to the non-publication of the notification under Section 4(1), as made in the writ petition before the High Court, was emphatically denied and disputed in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition affirmed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Paragraph 8 reads as follows :

"8. In reply to para 8 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the averments of the petitioners are wrong and denied. The publicity of the substance of the notification was made in concerned locality of village Dundahera on 6th July, 1981 through Shri Chhattar Singh Chowkidar with loud voice and beating of empty tin. The report exists in Roznamcha Vakyati at Serial No. 519 dated 6-7-1981. Similarly, the publicity was made in concerned locality of village Mulahera through Shri Surjan Singh Chowkidar with loud voice and beat of empty tin (Kanaster). A report to this effect exists in Roznamcha Vakyatiat Serial No. 520 dated 6-7-1981. The publicity was made on this very day on which the notification was issued. In response to this publicity 157 land-owners filed objection applications which clearly shows that due publicity was made in the concerned locality and the averments of the petitioners are wrong, baseless and hence denied."

4. It is apparent from the statement made in paragraph 8 that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the concerned localities of villages Dundahera and Mulahera. It is, however, urged on behalf of the appellants that it was not at all possible to make entries in the Roznamcha as to the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) on the same day it was published in both the villages. It is submitted that on this ground the statement in paragraph 8 as to the publication of the substance of the notification in the localities should not be accepted, and it should be held that there was no such publication as alleged. We are afraid, we are unable to accept the contention. Apart from the statement that there was publication of the notification there is a further statement in paragraph 8 that pursuant to such publication, 157 land-owners filed objections to the proposed acquisition. This fact has not been disputed before us on behalf of the appellants. Moreover, Mr. Tewatia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, has produced before us the original objection petitions filed by the land-owners. In each of these objection petitions there is a note at the end which reads as follows : -

"Note : The above referred notification was announced by the beat of drum in the village Dundahera on 6