Jati vs State of Haryana and another

Pritpal Singh, J.

A notification dated February 13, 1984 (Annexure P.1) under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') has been sought to be quashed in this writ petition.

The impugned notification was issued by the State of Haryana, respondent No. 1, for acquisition of the land of the petitioner Jati situated in village Karora, tehsil Kaithal, district Kurukshetra. This notification has been attacked on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act have not been complied with. It is contended that the substance of the notification has not been published in accordance with the prescribed procedure in the locality concerned. The respondentsauthorities have refuted this allegation and it is pointed out that as per the report of the roznamcha (Annexure P2) the substance of the notification was duly published in the locality.

The impugned notification (Annexure P1) indicates that there are four pattis in the petitioner''s village and the land situated in all the four pattis is the subject matter of the notification. The report roznamcha (Annexure P2) shows that the publicity of the contents of the notification was done by Risala Chowkidar in the village. The report of the Chowkidar in this respect contained in the report roznamcha is in the following terms :

"Proclamation of the above subject was got made in village Karora by beat of empty drum through Risala Chowkidar in a loud voice. N.P. Left thumbimpression Risala Chowkidar''''.

The contents of this report do not make clear as to what was announced by the Chowkidar who made the proclamation. Hence, the report is vague and indefinite. It was held by this Court in Sat Dev v. State of Punjab and others, 1975 P.L.R. 622, that it was the duty of the official concerned to have mentioned specifically as to what was pronounced so that the Court could find out whether the provisions of Section 4 of the Act had been complied with. Plainly the aforesaid report of the Chowkidar does not fulfill the requirement of Section 4 of the Act.

It is then to be noticed that no mention has been made in the report by the Chowkidar as to at what place in the village he made the proclamation. The petitioner''s averment in para 4 of the petition that it is a large village having population of 15,000 has not been rebutted. As mentioned earlier, the impugned notification itself shows that there are four pattis in the village. It was earlier held by this Court in Ghansham Dass Goyal v. The State of Haryana and another, 1982 PLJ 146, that the word ''locality'' as used in Section 4 of the Act must be construed to mean an area which is sufficiently small and compact so that naming it or any publicity in that area amounts to a notice to all the inhabitants of that locality. Ordinarily naming a village would amount to specifying the locality unless it is shown that the village is too large to be treated as a locality, their being smaller units within that village having specific names which can more appropriately be called a locality. In the present case there are four such smaller units in the village and so the name of the village itself would not amount to the specification of a locality. Thus, I find merit in the petitioner''s contention that the provisions of Section 4 of the Act have not been complied with in this case due to which the impugned notification is bad in law.

For aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition and quash the impugned notification (Annexure P1) so far as it concerns the petitioner''s land. No order as to costs.