JUDGMENT
Jas Raj Chopra, J.
1. All these nine writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order/judgment.
2. By these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the notification Annex. 1 dated January 4, 1991 of the Irrigation Department issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred-to as ‘the Act, 1894’, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on April 18, 1991 whereby the lands of villages Bhirani Chak 5 JSL, Sagar and 3 AML were sought to be acquired for the construction of Sidmukh Feeder (Raj.). Out of these nine writ petitions, four writ petitions i.e. one filed by Manphool, an other by Kishana, third by Puran Ram and fourth by Moman Ram have been filed by the residents of village 5 JSL and all of them relate to agricultural lands and the rest of the five writ petitions have been filed by persons who belong to village 8 JSL. Out of these five writ petitioners, four are agriculturists whose land is sought to be acquired and one of them i.e. Hanuman is a person whose plot of land is situated in the Abadi area of Chak 8 JSL and he has constructed a house on it. It may also be mentioned that although writ petitioners Srichand and Shanker Ram belong to village 8 JSL but they have challenged the notification as regards specification of the land situated in 5 JSL and not in 8 JSL. Be that as it may, the facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these writ petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners own their land either in Chak 5 JSL or in Chak 8 JSL except Hanuman who owns a house in village 8 JSL. They have given a description of the land that is held by them except Moman Ram. All have stated that they were informed by the Irrigation Department that their land is being acquired and on enquiry, they came to know that a notice under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 14th Jan. 1991 and was published in the Gazette on 18th April, 1991. Actually that was issued on 4th Jan. 1991 and not on 14th Jan. 1991. They also came to know that a notification with complete details of the persons who were affected by the acquisition and the details of their land was issued on August 21, 1991 and was published in the Raj. Gazette on 10th October, 1991 marked as Annex. 2 and it was also published in local paper ‘Lok Samat’ on 4.10.91. They have claimed that this notification Annex. 1 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 is bad because the details of the land have not been given in the notification i.e. the square numbers and kila numbers sought to be acquired, were not mentioned in the Notification and only the area of the village has been mentioned. This applies to all the villages whose land is sought to be acquired and on account of the absence of the sufficient identification and particulars of the land, the notification is vague and this amounts to non compliance of Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and that has deprived the petitioners of their right to raise objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 before the Collector. It was also claimed that the land acquired is not the best and they could have suggested an alternate course for the canal which would have saved six squares of land. Moreover, it has been said that the notification under Section 4 was not published in two daily news pears and the substance of the notification has not been notified by the Collector at convenient places in the said locality and the area and no compliance of Section 45 of the Act, 1894 has been made and, therefore, objections could not be raised under Section 5A of the Act. When no objections were raised under Section 5A of the Act, 1894, no enquiry was made by the Collector and no report was sent to the State Government and, therefore, declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 has been made without going through the report as required by Section 5A. In some of the plots, houses have been constructed and, therefore, it appears to be a case of total non-application of the mind. The present drawing of the Feeder Canal has been given a turn at RD 52 in order to reach the head, but if this canal instead of giving turn to wards village, could have reached the head right from 26 RD and thereby the turn would have been avoided and the length of the canal would have been reduced by six squares and moreover this land will require filling of earth to the height of about 8 feet and, therefore, this being uneconomic, petitioners have sought the relief for quashing of the entire acquisition proceedings. The Notification under Section 4 has been filed as Annex. 1 and notification under Section 6 as Annex. 2.
3. A return has been filed by the respondents in which it has been claimed that no enquiry was ever made from the office of the Irrigation Patwari because none is posted there in the office of the Executive Engineer (S&I), Bhadra and, therefore, the question of enquiry, made from the Irrigation Patwari does not arise. It was further denied that the petitioners came to know of the notification from the office of the Executive Engineer (S&I), Bhadra. It was also claimed that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was made on 29.8.91 and not on 29.6.91 and it was published in two newspapers viz; ‘daily lok Samat’ and ‘Seema Sandesh’, copies of which have been filed as Exs. R/1 and R/2. It is true that this notification was published in Lok Samat on 4th Oct. 91 and ‘Seema Sandesh’ on 8th Oct. 1991. The notification dated 29th August, 1991 which was sent for publication in the Rajasthan Gazette, was published therein on 10th Oct. 1991. The petitioners’ rights over the affected lands are not adversely affected because they are being acquired for public purpose i.e. construction of canal which will irrigate about ninety villages and three and half lakh bighas of desert area. It was also claimed that in the notification Annex. 4, land and villages have been described and, therefore, the compliance of legal provisions has been duly made and it was not at all essential to give kila numbers and square numbers in the notification. That has been done when the land after survey has been sough to be acquired by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. Actually, it is a case where the petitioner has not raised any objection because he will also be benefited by the irrigation facilities that will be made available to the area through this canal. It was also stated that out of 110 persons whose land is being acquired for this purpose, only 15 persons objected to it. Nine persons are the petitioners and rest of the four have also acceeded to the acquisition and the remaining persons have already acceeded to this pious cause, sponsored by the Government and accepted the compensation amount and only these nine persons who filed their objections, have filed these writ petitions. The particulars mentioned in the notification were sufficient for identification of the land sought to be acquired and the land that was notified for acquisition was the best for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired because this acquisition is based on the examination of the entire matter by various experts of the Irrigation Department of the State Govt. and the Central Water Commission, New Delhi has also approved the suitability of the project and the land to be acquired. The suitability of the land was also examined by conducting various laboratory tests of its soil for its water bearing capacity, permeability, mechanical analysis, salinity, liquid limit and plastic limit etc. etc. The erstwhile irrigation system known as Bhakra system i.e. canals named as Amarsingh branch & Jhansal Distrubutory were constructed about 40 years ago and the Sidhmukh Feeder is also being constructed alongwith these canals and, therefore, this land sought to be acquired is suitable for the present purpose of proposed canal. The notification under Section 4 was published in two leading newspapers for circulation i.e. ‘Lok Samat’ and ‘Pratap Kesari’ which are published from district Head quarter, Sriganganagar and having wide range of readers. This notice was published in these two newspapers on 10.2.91 and 12.2.91 respectively. These papers are easily available. The petitioners never enquired from the office of the Executive Engineer, Sidhmukh Survey & Investigation Division, Bhadra as regards the papers in which the notification under Section 4 was published. Be that as it may, the notice is not vague for the reasons that are pointed out by the petitioners in their writ petitioners. It has not been stated how this notice is defective for non-compliance of Section 45 of the Act, 1894. It was further claimed that Section 45 is not applicable to the proceedings under Section 4 of the Act, 1894. The only interest of the petitioners is to save their land from acquisition otherwise they have no objection to raise. Petitioners sent a memorandum of certain objections to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Rajasthan. The alternate proposals made in the objection petition were not technically sound and economically not feasible and, therefore, they were not accepted because that would have taken the canal twice in the Haryana State and the Haryana State would not have allowed or permitted it. This objection petition filed before the Hon’ble Chief Minister is marked an Annex. R./3. The contention of the petitioners that it would have saved or reduced the length of canal is far from truth. The present alignment of Sidhmukhya Feeder is alongwith existing Amarsingh branch & Jhansal Distributory upto RD 52 and thus there shall be a common bank for both the canals and thus earth work of the existing canal shall be utilised fully which will be highly economic. By this arrangement, the land between the existing canal and the boundary can be utilised. It shall further minimise the cost of Feeder and save the agriculturists and the existing canal will be merged into the proposed Feeder which is a bigger canal and water shall be available at higher level from this canal and will result in more irrigation and, therefore, the proposal to give it a turn at RD 26 is unsuitable taking into account the course of the canal which has been selected on the basis of the gravitational force with which the water will flow keeping in view the gradient of land which is a basic requirement. The Bhakra canal system was constructed before 40 years in this very area known as Amar singh sub branch and Jhansal distributory system and it is running successfully and, therefore, the proposed alignment is the best and most suitable. Only these nine persons are interested in frustrating this important project over which four crores of rupees have already been spent and it will be in the interest of the public at large not to check this construction which has already been undertaken. This project will be irrigating 90 villages of two districts viz. Sriganganagar and Churu resulting in irrigation of the desert land of 3 1/2 lacs bighas of desert area. The history of Sidhmukh Feeder canal is that its construction started about 35 years ago and a preliminary survey was made and relative distance stones (RD) were put in the fields of the various persons including the petitioners. These stones are numbered as 46 and 47. That was done prior to 1990 and, therefore, the petitioners were never in confusion about the lands, sought to be acquired. This project was earlier approved by the Central Water Commission, New Delhi and the Planning Commission in 1990 and was also sanctioned by the State Government. The work had started in 1991 and crores of rupees have been spent. The European Economic Committee has also sanctioned the financial help for construction of this project. Such an important project cannot be put to futility by filing these writ petitions on such flimsy and baseless grounds. Its foundation was laid by the late Prime Minister Shri Rajeev Gandhi on 5.10.1989 in village Bhirani and, it was, therefore, prayed that this writ petition should be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. SectionN. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. B.C. Mehta and Mr. S.S. Bhandawat, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
5. It was submitted by Mr. S.N. Sharma learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that publication of a notification under 4(1) of the Act, 1894 is mandatory and in this respect, he has placed reliance on a D.B. decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in Samirmal and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. as also a Single Bench decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court rendered in Balkrishan Dutta v. State AIR 1975 Jammu and Kashmir 27 wherein it has been held that publication of notification in the manner prescribed in Section 4(1) is an indispensable condition for valid acquisition. The provisions of Section 4(1) do not become directory in a case in which the provisions of Section 5A have been dispensed with. It was further submitted by Mr. Sharma that publication of the substance of the notification in convenient areas of the locality by the Collector is also a mandatory condition and if that is not done, it vitiates the proceedings and in this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Anr. v. Rajaram Jaiswal wherein it has been held that the requirement to give public notice of substance of notification in the locality is mandatory. Non- compliance would vitiate the proceedings calling for the Court’s interference. Such public notice must always follow and cannot precede the publication of notification in official Gazette, which is also a mandatory requirement. It is nobody’s case that the substance of the notification was published at the convenient places prior to the Gazette notification. What has been claimed is that the notification under Section 6 of the Act which is dated 29th Aug. 1990 was published in the Gazette on 10th October, 1991 whereas it is clear that it was published in ‘Lok Samat’ on 4th October, 1991 and in ‘Seema Sandesh’ on 8th Oct. 1991 which has been sent for publication to the Gazette as also to the two local newspapers. It is not the requirement of the law that the notification cannot be published in the newspapers prior to the Gazette notification. What is required is that the substance of the notification which is published in the Gazette, has to be notified by the Collector in the local area after the Gazette notification. Thus, the publication of the notice under Section 6 of the Act in the local newspapers prior to the Gazette notification hardly matters. They can be published in the local newspapers even prior to the Gazette notification because these newspapers do not publish substance of the notification but publish the notification itself. Moreover, such a plea has not been raised about the notification under Section 6. What has been claimed in the writ petition is that the notice published under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 has not been published in the Rajasthan Gazette prior to its publication in the local newspapers. I have already stated above that it is not the requirement of the law that notification cannot be published in the local newspapers prior to its publication in the Rajasthan Gazette. Their lordships have only held that the substance of the notification which is to be notified, by the Collector at convenient places, has to be published after the publication of the notification in the official Gazette. Reliance was also placed on a Single Bench decision of Delhi High Court in Babu Ram Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1986 Delhi 118 wherein the learned Single Judge has held that the publication of the notification under Section 4 in the official Gazette and giving of public notice of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the concerned locality both conditions of Section 4 are mandatory. This decision has been relied upon by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court in Bhapiya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6399 of 1991. Not only this decision but a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Collector v. Raja Ram Jaiswal was also relied upon and it was held that the compliance of Section 4 is mandatory and if it is proved that they have not been complied with then the notice under Section 4 falls and the necessary consequence is that the proceedings under Section 6 also cannot stand. What has been held by these authorities is that the publication of a notice under Section 4 is mandatory because the proceedings for land acquisition are initiated through that notice. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1894 lay down certain rules and procedure under which preliminary investigations may be made into the conditions and circumstances of the land which the local Government may consider likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company. When operations on a large scale are in contemplation and it is necessary to determine the line of a railway, road, canal or other important work, preliminary survey is necessary because uncertainty may exist about the position of the land to be taken up or its suitability for the purpose for which it is required. It is the duty of the officers while selecting the land for public purpose to avoid acquisition of such land which may entail unnecessary expenditure on the Govt. or annoyance to the owners if the object sought can be equally well attained by slight alteration of the alignment of site chosen, or in some other manner. It is true that before inquiries can be made under Section 5, a notification must be published by the Govt. in the local Gazette stating that the land is likely to be acquired and public notice of the substance of the notification must be given by the Collector. The purpose for such a notification to be issued has been fully described by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the famous case of Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay . Their lordships observed that the purpose of the notification under Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to find out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if necessary digging or boring into the sub soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is only under Section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by Government that land with proper description and area so as to be identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a company, Thus, the proper identification of the land and the description of the land for the purpose for which it is needed, is a requirement of Section 6 and not of Section 4 as has been held by their lordships of the Supreme Court. Their lordships further observed that what was a mere proposal under 5.4 becomes the subject matter of a definite proceeding under Section 6 of the Act when notification under Section 6 is issued and hence a defect in the notification under Section 4 is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings particularly when the acquisition is for a company. It is, therefore, clear that the purpose for issuing a notification under Section 4 is to initiate proceedings and to allow the Officers to carry preliminary investigation. Only the locality in which the land is situated, is to be described and proper description of the area so as to identify the land is to be given in the notification under Section 6 and not under Section 4. This is the basic authority on the subject. This authority has been followed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Patel Gandalal Somnath and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. wherein their lordships have observed that a notification under Section 4 is merely an introductory measure. It is tentative in its nature and there is no finality or immutability about it. It is of an exploratory character and it does not proprio motu result in acquisition and in making these observations, their lordships of the Supreme Court relied on the decision rendered in Babu Barkya Thakur’s case (supra). In Bhapiya’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Chief Justice has relied on decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Narinderjit Singh v. State of U.P. .
In that decision, their lordships have observed that the notification under Section 4 is a sine qua non of process of acquisition and, therefore, their lordships observed that it must be strictly construed i.e. if its publication is not complied with as provided by Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 then the Notification is bad. Their lordships further observed that the issue of a notification under Sub section (1) of Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and a notification which does not comply with the essential requirement of that provision of law must be held to be bad but at the same time, their lordships observed in para 9 that Section 4(1) does not require that the identity of the lands which may ultimately be acquired should be specified in the notice under Section 4(1) and the notice will not become bad for non specification of the land so as to get its identity established. Their lordships observed that it enjoins upon the Govt. a duty to specify the locality in which the land is situated and it is because of the fact that although the notification will be the first step towards the depriving a man of his property but this is only a notification which is tentative and exploratory in character. The land mentioned in it, may be acquired and may not be acuqired. It is only to inform that such a land is sought to be acquired and if they have any objection, they may file and the notice is to further enable the Officers to perform the acts mentioned under Section 4(2) of the Act, 1894. Thus, their lordships have authoritatively held in Babu Barkya Thakur’s case and Narendrajit Singh’s case (supra) that identification of the land is not as essential condition of Section 4(1) and, therefore, the notification cannot be struck down simply because the square numbers and killa numbers have not been specified. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 is to enable the persons whose land is sought to be acquired, to file their objections. What is required is that such a notice is to be issued and published in the manner presecribed by Section 4(1). It cannot be struck down on the ground that it fails to specify the square numbers and killa numbers in the notification. The requirement of the issuance of such a notice Under Section 4 is clear and categorical, firstly, it is the first step in the process of acquisition and secondly according to the decision of their lordships of Privy Council in Atma Ram v. Collector of Nagpur reported in AIR 1929 PC 92, it entitles the owner of the land to the value of the property at the time of expropriation and that expropriation takes place on the date of the notification under Section 4 and this is what has bean reiterated by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Narendrajit Singh’s case (supra). Thus, the importance of notification under Section 4 is firstly to allow or enable the Officers to undertake the survey work and take levels etc. and secondly to inform the cultivators if they have objection about acquisition then they may raise them and thirdly it fixes the date of which they will determine the value of the land sought to be acquired. The use of words “it appears” under Section 4(1) of the Act clearly shows that opinion is not finally made. When a notification is issued under Section 4 of the Act, the proceedings are at the stage of an enquiry under Section 5A as to whether the lands are required by a company for the purposes mentioned in Section 40 or for the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired by the Government. The Court will not at that stage judge whether the acquisition could be justifiable or not. It is not absolutely necessary for the validity of the land acquisition proceedings that the statement ‘public purpose’ should find a place in the notification actually issued and hence such a defect is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings under Section 4 and this stand is further fortified by Babu Barkya Thakur’s case (supra). However, if the land is acquired for a company, it must be expressly stated in a notification but if it is required for a public purpose, it is not a company purpose. The public purpose need not be stated in the notification under Section 4. In India, an agreement for sale by itself creates no interest and, therefore, it is clear that no interest and, in favour of the Govt. could have arisen from the notification under Section 4 unless one proposes to acquire the land by a notice under Section 6 and therefore, it is the requirement of the law i.e. the identity of the property, sought to be acquired, has to be determined in declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, although the date of the notification under Section 4 is the date at which values are to be considered, the identity of the property is determined by notification under Section 6. All that is legally necessary is that the lands which it is intended to acquire for a public purpose should be notified first under Section 4(2) and then under Section 6 of the Act and when that has been done, the requirement of the Act is satisfied. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act does not require a land to be identified. Neither the plots nor their boundaries have to be specified but the locality alone can be stated. Mr. B.C. Mehta learned Counsel appearing for the respondents drew my attention to a D.B. decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. Rambihari Misra v. The State of M.P. and Ors. wherein it was observed that notice with insufficient particulars does not vitiate proceedings for acquisition for public purpose. Reliance in this respect has been placed on decision in Babu Barkya Thakur’s case (supra) wherein it was observed as under:
The purpose of the notification under Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to find out after necessary survey and taking of levels, and, if necessary, digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is only under Section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by Government that land with proper description and area so as to be identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a company. What was a mere proposal under Section 4 becomes the subject matter of a definite proceedings for acquisition under the Act. Hence a defect in the notification under Section 4 is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings, particularly when the acquisition is for a Company and the purpose has to be investigated under Section 5A or Section 40 necessarily after the notification under Section 4.
6. In this respect, Mr. Sharma drew my attention to D.B. decision of the M.P. High Court in Saminnal and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. wherein the land sought to be acquired was of Jaora town and in the notification, it was stated that the land of Jaora will be acquired. Their lordships observed that Jaora is not a small village where name of the village will be sufficient. This is a town with a Municipality consisting of separate wards having their names and apparently, therefore, the mere mention of “Jaora” was held to be insufficient. In this authority also, their lordships felt that in case of a village, the mention of the name of the village may be sufficient but for Jaora town with several wards, specification of wards etc. was essential to identify the land, Thus, this authority has no application to the facts of the present case. In this respect, Mr. B.C. Mehta placed reliance on a D.B. decision of the Calcutta High Court rendered in State of West Bengal v. Bhutnath Chattarjee wherein their lordships observed that notification under Section 4(1) need not specify correctly the area within which the lands are proposed to be acquired. What Section 4(1) requires is that a notification should mention the ‘locality’ within which the land proposed to be acquired lies. The term ‘locality’ being rather vague, vagueness is necessarily implicit in the contemplated notice. The land need not be defined and identified. This is done subsequently by issuing a notice under Section 6 of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that non specification of Khasra numbers and kila numbers, does not vitiate the proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894.
7. In ground No.8 of the writ petition filed by Hawa Singh, it has been alleged that the Collector has failed to give notice of the substance of this Notification at any convenient place in the said locality. A definite reply supported by the affidavit of the Officer of the department categorically states that the contents of this sub para of the writ petition are incorrect. The notification was affixed on the conspicuous and convenient public places in the locality as also the notification was affixed at the Gram Panchayat building. These contents have not been challenged or denied by filing a rejoinder. Moreover, if the counsel wanted to dispute them, he could have requested the Court to summon the record. If their allegation is denied and it is specifically averred that such a publication has been made and a notice has also been affixed on the Gram Pahchayat building then a request should have been made to the Court to summon the record to disprove that assertion. The burden rested with the petitioners to prove that there is a non compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 i.e. the Collector has failed to publish the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality and, therefore, they could have requested the Court to summon the record to verify the contention of the respondents but that has not been done. In Babu Ram’s case of Delhi High Court which has been quoted earlier, the Court directed the counsel to produce the original records and the original records were seen. In this case when no request was made, the record was not summoned and, therefore, the State’s contention that substance of the notification was published in the locality at the convenient places cannot be easily brushed aside. Mere bald allegation of the petitioners cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. It is not a case where the notification has been issued with any malafides. A particular scheme of great importance involving expenses of crores of rupees has already been initiated and it is under progress and it is going to benefit the cultivators of two districts by irrigating three and a half lacs bighas of land and unless any malafides are imputed, such a notice under Section 4(1) cannot be held to be bad on mere technical grounds when it is admitted even by Mr. Sharma that the acquisition is for the important public purpose. Thus, the spirit behind the acquisition cannot be challenged. Thus, when no allegations of malafides are made, the technical defects pointed out in the notice under Section 4(1) cannot result in quashing the entire acquisition proceedings when out of 110 persons whose land has been acquired, only these nine persons have come to the Court and rest of them have already surrendered their lands and have accepted the compensation. I rely in this respect on a S.B. decision of the Bombay High Court in Metro Industries, Bombay v. Union of India 1980 Bombay 183 and the decision in age Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. wherein it has been held that the notification under Section 4 can be challenged on the basis of the malafides or when it has been issued in colourable exercise of the powers. Both these contingencies do not exist in this case. Lastly. Mr. Sharma submitted that although he admits that purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is public purpose i.e. construction of ‘Sidhmukh Feeder’ and it is a very important project for which crores of rupees have been spent and will still be spent and the project has been approved by the Central Water Board and is also being assisted by the Eureopean Economic Community. He has, therefore, submitted that if there is any defect in the notice, the land may be acquired by issuing a fresh notice and, therefore, if the date of the notification is advanced by one year, in that case he will be satisfied and in this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in AIR 1992 SC 1698. That was a case in which a defect as regards the approval of the scheme was found and, therefore, the acquisition was quashed by the High Court but the Hon’ble Supreme Court interfered and said that keeping in view the importance of the entire acquisition, a major part of it has already taken place and development activities have already started, their lordships in those circumstances advanced the date of the notification by three years for the purpose of calculating the market value of the land to the extent it is not relatable to the improvement, made by the appellants in the land of the locality. In this case, I donot find any defect in the notification. The notification has been published in Gazette and two local newspapers and its substance has been published in the locality at the convenient places and was also affixed on the notice Board of the Gram Panchayat building in which the land is situated. As regards the area which is sought to be acquired, the respondents’ contention is that this canal was carved out before 30 years and work on it is in progress and stones have been laid before 1990 to show that from or through which particular area, it will run because Amar singh sub branch and Jhansal Distributory System are already functioning since long and one of its bank will be utilised for construction of this canal and, therefore, the people of the locality were never in confusion about the course of the canal. So much so that they have already filed the protest petition before the Hon’ble Chief Minister which was sent for report to the concerned Minister and, therefore, when the people of the locality were not in doubt about the acquisition proceedings and the names of the villages that were involved in it and the area sought to be acquired, were also specified, I find no defect in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. As one bank of existing Amarsingh Sub branch & Jhansal Distributory will be utilized for construction of this canal keeping in view the down gradient of land & easy flow of water, this proposal is most suitable as well as economical. Moreover, when there is no defect in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 then the date of notification is the determining factor for arriving at the cost of the canal sought to be acquired. The date of notification need not be advanced by one year as suggested by Mr. Sharma. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
8. In the result, I find no force in these petitions and they are hereby dismissed with no order on to costs.