JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. This is a bunch of 10 writ petitions. The petitioners impugn the notifications issued by the State Government under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification under Section 4 was issued on April 4, 1998. The second notification was issued on April 6, 1998. The provisions of Section 17 having been invoked, the requirement of compliance, with Section 5A was dispensed with.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended by Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated as the provisions of Section 4(1) were not complied with. The substance of the notification was not published in the locality. Secondly, it has been submitted that there is an industrial unit running in a part of the land which is being acquired. The petitioners in C.W.P. No. 13578 of 1978 have set up a unit for the manufacture of machine parts. No useful purpose would be served by acquiring the land. It is also maintained that there is a temple on site. Lastly, it has been contended that there was no ground to invoke the urgency provisions contained in Section 17. Reference to the averments in C.W.P. No. 13578 of 1998 has been made in support of the claim made by the petitioners. On these premises, it has been contended that the notification dated April 4, 1998 and April 6, 1998, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.11 and P.13 in C.W.P. No. 13578 of 1998 be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the parties state that the factual and legal position in the other petitions is identical. Therefore, the pleadings in these petitions need not be specifically noticed.
4. A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. It has been inter alia averred by way of a preliminary objection that the land is required urgently to provide the facility of sewerage and for the construction of a road. According to the respondents, the notifications were duly published in the Gazette. The notification dated April 4, 1998 was also published in two Daily Newspapers viz. Dainik Jagran and National Herald. It was also published in Dainik Mewat. Still further, Munadi was carried out in village Basai and in the surrounding locality. In particular, it has been mentioned that munadi was done “near the land through Shri Daya Kishan, Chowkidar by beat of drum.” The copies of the notification were also pasted in the Patwar Khana and the Tehsil Office. On this basis, the respondents maintain that there is no merit in these writ petitions and that these should be dismissed.
5. It is undoubtedly correct that Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act requires the publication of the notification. It makes it incumbent upon the authority to publish the notification in the official gazette. It must also be published in two daily newspapers which are in circulation in the locality. A public notice of the substance of the notification has also to be given to convenient places in the locality. However, in the present case, it has been categorically averred that these requirements had been duly complied with.
6. Mr. Goyal submits that the substance of the notification had not been duly published in the locality. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the contents of an affidavit alleged to have been filed by Daya Kishan, Chowkidar. A copy of this affidavit has been produced as Annexure P.12 with C.W.P. No. 13578 of 1998. In this affidavit, Daya Kishan has said that he had not done “any Munadi and beat of drum in village Basai regarding notification under Section 4 dated 4.4.98 and under Section 6 dated 1.5.98 which is published by the Haryana Government for the road between Sector 9 and 10 Gurgaon …”
7. We are unable to accept this affidavit. Firstly, nothing has been pointed out to show that any notification under Section 6 had been issued on May 1, 1998 as is said in this affidavit. On that ground alone, the affidavit appears to be palpably false and is liable to be rejected. Secondly, the averments of fact have been categorically denied in the written statement. It is no doubt true that in at least one of the cases viz C.W.P. No. 7672 of 1998, a replication has been filed. However, even in this replication, the discrepancy in the affidavit viz. the issue of notification under Section 6 on May 1, 1998 has not been explained. Still further, copies of the reports made by the Patwari have been produced as annexures with the written statement. No explanation with regard to the documents has been given. No affidavit of Chowkidar-Daya Kishan has been filed in which he may have denied the factum of his thumb-marking the reports which have been produced alongwith the written statement. We have no reason to suspect the averments made in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. In the written statement, it has been categorically averred that the provisions of Section 4 had been duly complied with. In view of these averments, we reject the contention that the substance of the notification had not been published in the locality.
8. It has been then contended that the petitioners are running an industrial unit. It is undoubtedly correct that in the petition, a vague averment in that behalf has been made. However, no details with regard to the actual area under the industry, the turn over, the nature of the unit or the expense incurred thereon have been given. It has not been averred as to whether or not the petitioners are paying any tax (sales tax or income tax). Still further, it has not been suggested that the petitioners are paying any excise duty. Even if it is assumed that the petitioners have a unit, the Government shall assess the compensation and pay it to the petitioners. The mere existence of a structure or a unit cannot be a ground for quashing the acquisition proceedings.
9. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, counsel for the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 7672 of 1998 contends that the details regarding the unit have been duly given. It has been mentioned that an amount of Rs. 5 lacs was spent on the land, construction, machinery and starting of the unit. Assuming it to be so, the petitioners shall be entitled to make a claim for the grant of compensation. The mere fact that the petitioners have spent a total amount of Rs. 5 lacs on the land, construction and machinery etc., cannot mean that the Government is precluded from acquiring the land. The petitioners shall be at liberty to remove the machinery and claim compensation in respect of the land and structure.
10. It has been then contended that there was no ground to invoke the provisions of Section 17.
11. We can’t accept this contention. Providing sewerage and road are essential for the residents of the area. The plans produced on the record show that the residents of the two areas have no proper access. The sewerage facility is also not available. Keeping in view the fact that rain water can lead to further complications, the Government cannot be blamed for having invoked the urgency provisions.
12. Lastly, Mr. Vermani has contended that the petitioners’ factory is at a considerable distance from the proposed road. Therefore, their land could be excluded from acquisition. This is a matter regarding which the petitioners could have made a representation to the competent authority. So far as the present proceedings are concerned, nothing has been pointed out to show that the land of the petitioners is not needed.
13. No other point has been raised in any of the connected matters.
14. In view of the above, there is no merit in any of these petitions. These are consequently, dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.