JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions No. 19797 of 1998 and 75 of 1999 both of which are directed against the same notifications issued by the State of Haryana under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). Since the arguments were addressed in civil writ petition No. 19797 of 1998 the facts are being taken from this case.
2. By notification issued on 22.10.1997 under Section 4 of the Act, the Governor of Haryana declared his intention to acquire 70 acres and 12.39 acres of land in village Chouma Hadbast No.62 and Carterpuri Hadbast No.63 respectively in Tehsil and District Gurgaon for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilisation of land for residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 1, 2, 23 and 23-A at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana as shown in the development plan. The object was to develop the area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The notification was published as required by Section 4 of the Act inviting objections from persons interested. They were required to file their objections in writing before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon within thirty days from the publications of the notification, it is common ground between the parties that the petitioners did not file their objections even though their land was included in the . notification. Some of the landowners had filed objections which were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector who submitted his report to the State Government and the latter after considering the same publishing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act by issuing the notification in the official gazette on 16.10.1998.
3. The primary grievance made in the writ petitions is that the land is being acquired by the State Government for the benefit of a private colonizer namely the Ansals and that the same is to be handed over to them for development which, according to the petitioners, is illegal because provisions of Part VII of the Act have not been complied with. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is emphatically denied that the land is being acquired for the development of the area by Ansals or that it is being acquired for any company. Learned Assistant Advocate General on receipt of instructions from the departmental representatives who were present in court stated before us that the land has been acquired for a public purpose as mentioned in the impugned notifications and that it will not be handed over to the Ansals for development and that the allegations made by the petitioners in this regard were imaginary and without any basis. In view of the statement made by the learned State counsel, it is not necessary for us to examine this contention any further. Since the land is not being acquired for any company or for the Ansals, it was not necessary for the respondents to comply with the provisions of Part VII of the Act. We have, therefore, ho hesitation in rejecting this ground of attack.
4. It was then contended that public notice of the substance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was not given at convenient places in the locality and, therefore, the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act stood violated making the notification liable to be struck down. Allegation in this regard are contained in para 7 of the writ petition which have been controverted in the reply. The original record was produced before us by the learned Assistant Advocate General and we have perused the same. A copy of the report as entered in the daily diary register in Tehsil office which has been certified to be true by the Patwari is on the record which clearly mentions that not only was the substance of the notification published in the two villages by beat of drum but a copy of this report alongwith the notification under Section 4 of the Act requiring the interested persons to file their objections in writing within thirty days was put up in the Patwar Khatia and also on the notice board in the Tehsil Office. In view of this report, we are satisfied that the substance of the notification as required by Section 4 of the Act was published in the locality and public notice thereof was given in the Patwar Khana and also on the notice board of the Tehsil Office. There is thus no violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act as alleged.
5. It was then strenuously urged by Shri M.L. Sharma. Advocate that the land belonging to the petitioners had not been correctly mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the Act which misled them and, therefore, they could not file their objections. Before we deal with this contention, it is necessary to mention that the petitioners claim to have purchased 2 Kanals of land from one Surinder Singh son of Shri Shiv Charan by a registered sale deed dated 19.6.1997 and admittedly no mutation had.been sanctioned in their favour till the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 22.10.1997. In the absence of the mutation, the respondents have pleaded that the petitioners are not the owners of the land in dispute and have, therefore, no Iocus standi to file the present petition. Land of the vendor is situate in-village Carterpuri and comprises in rect. No.23 bearing Khasra Nos. 24, 25 and also in Rect No.26 bearing Khasra Nos.4/2 and 5 measuring 31 kanals 4 marlas out of which 2 kanals-instated to have been purchased by the petitioners. What is stated in the notification is Khasra No. 24 (min), 25(min) and again in Rect. No.26 it is stated as 4/2(min) and 5(min). The argument indeed is that by the use of the word ‘min’ with Khasra Nos., the petitioners were misled inasmuch as they thought that only a part of their khasra number was being acquired which did not include their portion of the land and, therefore, they could not file the objections. There is no merit in this contention either. Counsel for the partite were agreed that the word ‘min’ used against khasra numbers in the impugned notification under Section 4 of the Act means that only a part of the khasra number was being acquired. It became necessary to use the word ‘min’ in the notification because it is true that only parts of those khasra numbers were being acquired by that notification and the remaining part of those khasra numbers already stood acquired by the State Government by an earlier notification issued on 15.1.1996. A copy of that notification was produced before us during the course of arguments. Since only the un-acquired portioilikf Khasra Nos.24 and 25 in Rect. No.23 and Khasras Nos.4/2 and 5 in Rect. No.26 were being acquired the remaining portion of these khasra numbers already having been acquired, it cannot be said that the petitioners were misled. There could be no question of any misunderstanding because a part of the khasra number was now being acquired and the remaining part had already been acquired. This is only an after thought and an excuse which is being offered by them for not filing their objections within time. We, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection taken by the respondents. The land has not been mutated in favour of the petitioners. Even if we assume that they had purchased the same, they would have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Otherwise also, since they did not file the objections within time they are not entitled to be heard in the present writ petition
6. Lastly, it was argued half-heartedly that the public purpose mentioned in the impugned notifications was vague and, therefore, the said notifications were liable to be set aside. The argument is being noticed only to be rejected. We have gone through the impugned notifications and find that the land mentioned therein had been acquired for a public purpose, namely utilisation of land for residential, commercial and institutional purposes for the development of Sectors 1, 2, 23 and 23-A at Gurgaon. We fail to understand how the purpose mentioned in the notifications is vague. No meaningful argument was advanced by the learned counsel in this regard. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petitions which stand dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.2,000/- in each case.