Judgment:
G.R. Majithia, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) issued vide notification No. 2078-51 BL-78/9348 dated 20th March, 1978, in this petition under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated December 15, 1977 was issued by respondent No. Instating that the land mentioned therein was required for a public purpose, at a public expence, for setting up Industrial Focal Point at Amritsar. It was followed by a declaration dated March 20, 1978, under Section 6 of the Act.
3. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was assailed on the ground that notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was not issued to the petitioner. Issuance of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was a condition pracedent for further proceedings, namely, finalisation of the. award and taking of possession pursuant thereto. Since notice under Section 9(3) of the Act was not issued, all the proceedings subsequent thereto were invalid.
4. A perusal of the pleas In the writ petition raises two points for adjudication namely; (i) whether failure of issuance of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act vitiate all the proceedings conducted after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act (ii) whether the petitioner is entitled to get his land excluded from acquisition since he is running a factory on the land acquired.
5. Section 6 of the Act prescribes the next step in the proceedings, after a decision has been arrived at as to the expediency to the proposed acquisition i. e. to the effect that the particular land is needed for a purpose, The declaration has to be published within one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act Section 9 prescribes the next step to be taken by the Collector, and its object is to ascertain who are persons who are interested in land and to give them an opportunity to put in claim to compensation for their respective interests and their objection, If any, to the measurement made under Section 8 of the Act. With this view, the Collector has to issue two notices. One is a general or a public notice to be given in the locality intimating the fact of the proposed acquisition and inviting claims for compensation from all persons interested in the land. The other is a special or a personal notice to be served on the occupant and all other persons believed to be interested in the land to the same effect. The object is to afford to persons occupying the land or interested in the land to make a claim for compensation, so that the Collector might decide the compensation payable to* them and order payment. Respondent No. 2 in his written statement dated September 29, 1981 has stated that a notice dated March 21, 1978 under Section 9 of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling him to appear before the Collector, on April 19, 1978, the petitioner refused to accept the notice, and a copy thereof was pasted on the house of the petitioner and a report to this effect was made by the process server and (he peon. This fact receives corroboration from the award of the Collector dated March 28, 1981. The petitioners presence is recorded in the proceedings. If the petitioner had no notice under Section 9(3) of the Act, he obviously would not have appeared before the Collector. Moreover, the petitioner had adequate opportunity to make a claim for compensation. The Collector had examined the claim of the petitioner and awarded him compensation. The plea that the petitioner was not served with notice under Section 9(3) of the Act is factually incorrect. Further more, the plea appears is not only factually incorrect, but the petitioner has also failed to establish that any prejudice has been caused to him for failure to serve a notice since he was present before the Collector when his claim for compensation was duly adjudicated. The purpose of the notice is to enable the claimant to make a claim for compensation before the Collector. The petitioner has had an opportunity to make the claim and it was duly considered and acceded to. The petitioner if aggrieved against the award of the Collector has remedy available under Section 18 of the Act. After issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the land vests in the State and the claimant is only entitled to compensation of the land acquired. The claimant cannot urge that be required the land for a private purpose or that he has raised the construction over it ; if any, such construction existed on the land acquired, the acquiring authority is obliged to pay compensation to him. The quality and quantity of construction has only to be considered by the acquiring authority for determining the amount of compensation for that construction, A perusal of the interim order passed by the Bench reveals that it was brought to the notice of the Bench that license had been issued to the petitioner by the Controller of Explosives, Agra, on August 3, 1973 and the petitioner was entitled to store carbide of calcium. If any such licence has been issued and the petitioner is running a factory the petitioner is at liberty to move the authorities for excluding that portion of the land under the factory from acquisition. If any such representation is made, the same will be disposed of by the appropriate, authorities sympathetically keeping in view the factual position at the spot.
6. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the acquisition is valid and it is not open to exception. I have left it open to the authorities to exclude that portion of the land from acquisition on which the petitioner's factory exists.