M/S V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                     [2013] 10 S.C.R. 33


       MIS V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.                      A
                              v.
               STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 6792 of 2013)
                     AUGUST 16, 2013
                                                                   B
  [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
             AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894- ss.4 & 5A- Non-publication
of the substance of the notification as prescribed under the       C
Act in the locality concerned - Effect - Held: The requirement
is mandatory - By effecting such publication in the locality, it
is possible for the person in possession, namely, either the
owner or lessee to make representation/ objection in enquiry
u/s. 5A - By non-publication of the same in the locality as        D
provided under the Act, the owner or occupier loses his
valuable right - Appellant-company prevented from making
objection uls.5A -Acquisition proceedings in respect of lands
belonging to appellant-company therefore liable to be
 quashed.                                                          E

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 - Acquisition of running
industrial unit for public purpose - Justification - Held: Not
justified - Appellant-Company was a running industrial unit
 even prior to the notification u/s.4 - Hence could not be
 acquired for a public purpose - No justification in acquiring     F
 a running industrial unit for industrialization of the area -
 Impugned notifications qua the running industrial unit cannot
be sustained in law.

    Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 - Appel/ant-Comp<!nY          G
running an industry similar to the public purpose for which
lands were being acquired ;- Location of appellant-Company
on the extreme comer of the acquired lands - Respondent-

                              33                                   H
    34      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   State itself excluded more than 76 acres of land - Held: Even
    if the Government or the authority concerned excludes the
    lands of the appellant-Company, there would not be any
    difficulty in executing the scheme - Lands of appellant-
    company ought to have been excluded.
B
        Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Land
    acquisition - Award - Writ petition filed by appellant-
    Jandowner within 5 weeks of the passing of the award -
    Maintainability - Held: The writ petition was filed within
C   reasonable time - It could not be simply dismissed on the
    ground of delay or /aches.

        On 21-2-2005, the Haryana Government Industries
    Department issued a notification under Section 4 of the
    Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of certain
D   lands for a public purpose. The lands belonging to·
    appellant-Company were covered in the said notification.
    The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on
    29-12-2006 and the award was announced on 15-07-2007.

E       Challenging the said award, a writ petition was filed
    by the appellant-Company on 20.08.2007, i.e. within 5
    weeks of the passing of the award. The High Court
    dismissed the petition, and therefore the instant appeal.

       The appellant-Company submitted:- (i) that the High
F Court committed an error in dismissing the writ petition
  filed by the appellant-Company on the ground that the
  same was not maintainable; (ii) that the notification under
  Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the locality
  wherein the land is situate which prevented the
G appellant-Company from making objection ui;ider
  Section 5A of the Act; (iii) that as the appellant-Company
  itself was a running industry on the date of the
  notification, the said land could not be acquired for a
  public purpose; and (iv) that inasmuch as the
H respondent-State itself excluded more than 76 acres of
V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF            35
                  HARYANA
land and the appellant is running an industry even as on        A
date, it ought to have been excluded.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. The appellant-Company filed the writ petition
within a reasonable time, namely, within 5 weeks of the B
passing of the award. The Writ Petition filed by the
appellant before the High Court cannot be simply
dismissed on the ground of delay or laches. The said issue
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case
and in view of the fact that the appellant has approached C
the High Court within a reasonable time, it is but proper
for the High Court to go into the merits of the claim of the
appellant. In normal circumstance, the matter has to go
back to the High Court for consideration of various points
raised, however, in order to shorten the litigation. and of D
the fact that necessary/ required materials are available
before this Court, the case of both the parties is being
considered on merits. [Para 9] [41-C-F]
     Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1996)
11 SCC 698: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 6; Municipal Council, E .
Ahmednagar & Anr. vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. (2000) 2 ·
SCC 48: 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 197; C. Padma & Ors. vs. Dy.
Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (1997) 2
SCC 627: 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 158 and Swaika Properties
(P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC F
695: 2008 (2) SCR 521 - held inapplicable.

     2.1. In spite of knowing the specific ground raised by
the appellant about the non-publication of the substance
of the notification as prescribed under the Act in the          G
locality cor.cerned, neither the State nor the ;Lan,d
Acquisition Collector availed the opportunity of filing reply
refuting the same. In such circumstances, this Court has
no other option except to hold that there was no
publication of the substance of the notification under          H
     36      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 10 S.C.R.


 A Section 4(1) of the Act in the locality which is held to be
   mandatory. By effecting such publication in the locality,
   it would be possible for the person in possession,
   namely, either the owner or lessee to make their
   representation/ objection in the enquiry under Section SA.
 B In addition to the same, such person "owner or occupier"
   is entitled to file their objections within 30 days from the
   date of publication in the locality and by non-publication
   of the same in the locality as provided under the Act, the
   owner or occupier loses his valuable right. For these
 C reasons also, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be .
   quashed. [Para 15) [48-C-G]
         2.2. There is no justification in acquiring a running
    industrial unit for industrialization of the area. By placing
    acceptable materials, the appellant-Company has
  D demonstrated that the construction at the site in question
    is A-Class construction and the fact that Rector No. 75
    itself, which is a substantial part of the area, has been left
    out from the acquisition, the impugned notifications qua
    the running industrial unit cannot be sustained in law. On
. E going through the materials placed, it is clear that the
    appellant-Company has established that it is a running
    industrial unit even prior to the notification under Section
    4 of the Act and the appellant has established its case on
    this ground also. [Para 16) [48-H; 49-A-B, DJ
 F
        2.3. If the appellant-Company had the opportunity of
   participating in the enquiry under Section SA, it would be
   open to the Company to make a representation for
   exclusion like others and there would be every possibility
   for the State Government to accede to the request since
 G the appellant-Company is running an industry which is
   similar to the public-purpose for which lands were being
   acquired. The location of the appellant-Company is on
   the extreme corner of the acquired lands. Even if the
   Government or the authority concerned excludes the
 H
V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF 37
                  HARYANA
lands of the appellant-Company, there would not be any A
difficulty in executing the scheme. [Para 17] [50-B-D]

     Khub Chand & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1967)
1 SCR 120; J&K Housing Board and Anr. vs. Kunwar Sanjay
Krishan Kaul & Ors. (2011) 10 SCC 714: 2011 (14) SCR 976 B
and Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State
of Haryana and Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 210 - cited.

    3. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside
and the land acquisition proceedings insofar as the
appellant-Company is concerm~d is quashed. [Para 18] C
[50-E]
                     Case Law Reference:
  1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 6     held inapplicable   Para 8
                                                             D
  1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 197 held inapplicable     Para 8
  1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 158 held inapplicable     Para 8
  2008 (2) SCR 521          held inapplicable   Para 8
  (1967) 1 SCR 120          cited               Para 14      E
  2011 (14) SCR 976         cited               Para 14
  (2013) 4 sec 210          cited               Para 14
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.          F
6792 of 2013.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2008 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
13208 of 2007.
                                                             G
    Guru Krishna Kumar, Hari Shankar K., Vikas Singh
Jangra, Aditya Verma, Lakshmi for the Appellant.

   Manjit Singh, AAG, Vivekta Singh, Tarjit Singh, Kamal
Mohan Gupta, Ravindra Bana for the Respondents.          H
    38      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. Leave granted.

         2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
    dated 08.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
B   Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 13208 of 2007 whereby
    the High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/s V.K.M. Kattha
    Industries Pvt. Ltd.-the appellant-Company.

         3. Brief Facts:
c        (a) The appellant-Company is an industrial unit engaged
    in manufacturing of kattha for various tobacco and non-tobacco
    products, having its office at Janti Kalan Road, Post Office
    Kundli, District Sonipat. Vide sale deed dated 10.05.1994, the
    appellant-Company purchased a running industrial unit
D   comprised in Rect. No. 75, Khasra No. 25, Rect. No. 80,
    Khasra Nos. 5/1 and 6/2 total measuring 23 kanals 14 marlas
    and got it registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the
    Director, Industries Department, Haryana. On 05.05.2003, the
    appellant-Company leased out the running industrial unit to one
E   Mis Anand Agro Products.

         (b) On 21.12.2005, Haryana Government Industries
    Department issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land
    Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') for acquisition of
F   certain lands situated in Village Kundli and Village Sirsa for a
    public purpose, namely, for the development of a Industrial
    Estate and the lands belonging to the appellant Company were
    covered in the said notification. The declaration under Section
    6 of the Act was subsequently made on 29.12.2006 and the
G   award was announced on 15.07.2007.

        (c) Being aggrieved by the notifications dated 21.12.2005
    and 29.12.2006, the appellant-Company preferred CWP No.
    13208 of 2007 before the High Court. By order dated
    08.07.2008, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
H
V.K.M. KATIHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF                      39
         HARYANA [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
    (d) Being aggrieved of the same, the appellant-Company                A
has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this
Court.

      4. Heard Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel
for the appellant-C.ompany, Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional
                                                                          8
Advocate General for the respondent-State.

Contentions:
       5. Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned senior counsel for the
appellant-Company submitted as under:- (i) The notification               c
under Section 4 (1) of the Act was not published in the locality
wherein the land situate which prevented the appellant-
Company from making objection under Section 5A of the Act.
(ii) As the appellant-Company itself is a running industry on the
date of the notification, the said land cannot be acquired for a          D
public purpose, namely, for the development of Industrial Estate.
(iii) The High Court committed an error in dismissing the writ
petition filed by the appellant-Company herein on the ground
that the same is not maintainable after the announcement of
award, particularly, when the appellant-Company failed to file            E
any objection under Section 5A of the Act. The decisions of this
Court relied on by the High Court are not applicable to the facts
of this case and are distinguishable. (v) Inasmuch as the
respondent-State itself has excluded more than 76 acres of land
and the appellant is running an industry even as on date, it ought
to have excluded and such exclusion would not affect the                  F
execution of the Scheme.

      6. On the other hand, Mr. Manjit Singh; learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana submitted
that inasmuch as the land acquisition authorities have complied           G
with all the formalities, the appellant-Company failed to file
objection under Section 5A of the Act and the writ petition
having been filed in the High Court after passing of the award,
the High Court is fully justified in dismissing the writ petition filed
by the appellant-Company.                                                 H
    40       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 10 S.C.R.


A        7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and
    perused all the relevant materials.

    Discussion:

B         8. Coming to the contention of learned senior counsel for
    the appellant about the dismissal of the writ petition by the High
    Court on the ground that the same has been filed after passing
    of the award, it is brought to our notice that all the four cases
    relied on by the High Court are inapplicable to the facts of the
c   present case. The first decision relied on by the High Court is
    Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1996) 11
    sec 698. In that case, notification under Section 4(1) of the
    Act was published in the Gazette on 01.06.1976, award was
    passed on 03.07.1981 and the aggrieved parties filed writ
D   petition in the High Court only on 21.01.1994, i.e. after 13 years.
    Second decision relied on by the High Court in Municipal
    Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors.,
    (2000) 2 sec 48 wherein notification under Section 4(1) was
    published on 15.05.1971, award was passed on 26.04.1976
E   and the writ petition came to be filed on 21.10.1992, i.e., 21
    years after the date of notification. Third decision relied on by
    the High Court is C. Padma & Ors. vs. Dy. Secretary to the
    Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627 wherein
    notification under Section 4(1) was published on 17.10.1962,
F   acquisition proceedings became .final and possession was
    taken on 30.04.1964, compensation was paid and accepted
    and writ petition was filed after 32 years. The last decision
    relied on by the High Court is Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. & Anr.
    vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 695 wherein
    notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on
G   08.02.1984, possession was taken on 17.02.1987 and writ
    petition came to be filed on 10.03.1989. It is relevant to point
    out that the writ petition came to be filed after two years that
    too after taking over possession.

H        9. In the case on hand, notification under Section 4(1) of
V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF 41
         HARYANA [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
the Act was published in the official gazette on 21.12.2005, A
declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
29.12.2006 and the award was passed on 15.07 .2007.
Challenging the said award, a writ petition was filed by the
appellant-Company on 20.08.2007, i.e. within 5 weeks of the
passing of the award. It is the assertion of the appellant- B
Company that possession of the said land is stiff vested with
them. Taking note of the above factual scenario and of the fact
that in the decisions relied on by the High Court, there was a
huge delay in filing the writ petitions, such as 13 years, 21 years,
32 years and 2 years after taking over possession, hence, in c
the light of the fact that the appellant-Company has filed the writ
petition within a reasonable time, namely, within 5 weeks of the
passing of the award, we are of the view that all the 4 decisions
 referred to and relied on by the High Court are inapplicable to
the facts of the present case. On this ground itself, the impugned D
order dismissing the writ petition is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, we hold that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant
herein before the High Court cannot be simply dismissed on
the ground of delay or laches or filed after passing of the award.
The said issue depends upon the facts and circumstances of E
each case and in view of the· fact that the appellant has
approached the High Court within a reasonable time, it is but
 proper for the High Court to go into the merits of the claim of
the appellant. In normal circumstance, the matter has to go back
to the High Court for consi~eration of various points raised,
however, in order to shorten the litigation and of the fact that F
necessary/required materials are available before this Court,
we consider the case of both the parties on merits and give
our reasons hereunder.

      10. Regarding the contention relating to publication of G
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, it is the claim of the
appellant that since the same was not in accordance with tile
mandate provided in the Statute, the appellant-Company was
not at all in a position to file their objection under Section SA
of the Act.                                                        H
    42       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A        11. In order to answer the above claim, it is better to
    understand the Scheme of the Act and the benefits given to the
    land owners for which it is desirable to extract Sections 4, 5A
    and 6 of the Act which are as under:

         "4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers
B
         of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever it appears to the
         appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed
         or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a
         company, a notification to that effect shall be published in
         the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circ~lating•
c        in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regicmal
         language, and the Collector shall cause public noticE~ of
         the substance of such notification to be given at convenient
         places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such
         publication and the giving of such public notice, being
D        hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the
         notification).

         (2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either
         generally or specially authorised by such Government in
E        this behalf, and for his servants and workmen.-

         to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such
         locality;

         to dig or bore into the subsoil;
F
         to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land
         is adapted for such purpose;

         to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken
         and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be
G        made thereon;

         to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks
         and cutting trenches; and,

         where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the
H
V.K.M. KATTHA INQUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF 43
         HARYANA [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

   levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut          A
   down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence
   or jungle:

   Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon
   any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house        B
   (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without
   previously giving such occupier at least seven days' notice
   in writing of his intention to do so.

   5A. Hearing of objections:.-(1) Any person interested
   in,any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-        C
   section (1 ), as being needed or likely to be needed for a
   public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days
   from the date of the publication of the notification, object
   to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality,
   as the case may be.                                              D

   (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made
   to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the
   objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any
   person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and        E
   shall, after hearing all such objections and after making
   such !further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either
   make a report in respect of the land which has been
   notified under Section 4, sub-section (1 ), or make different
   reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the     F
   apprc.1priate Government, containing his recommendations
   on the objections, together with the record of the
   proce:edings held by him, for the decision of that
   Government. The decision of the appropriate Government
   on the objections shall be final.
                                                                    G
   (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be
   deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to
   claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired
   unde,r this Act.
                                                                    H
    44       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A        6. Declaration that land is required for a public
         purpose. -(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this
         Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after
         considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A,
         sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a
B        public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be
         made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to
         such Government or of some officer duly authorised to
         certify its orders, and different declarations may be made
         from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land
c        covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-
         section (1 ), irrespective of whether one report or different
         reports has or have been made (wherever required) under
         Section 5-A, sub-section (2):

               Provided that no declaration in respect of any
D        particular land covered by a notification under Section 4,
         sub-section (1)-

               (i) published after the commencement of the Land
         Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967
E        (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land
         Acquisition (Amendment) Act; 1984, shall be made after
         the expiry of three years from the date of the publication
         of the notification; or

               (ii) published after the commencement of the Land
F        Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after
         the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of
         the notification:

                Provided further that no such declaration shall be
G        made unless the compensation to be awarded for such
         property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly
         out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed
         by a local authority.

               Explanation 1.-ln computing any of the periods
H
V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF                 45
         HARYANA [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.)

    referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any     A
    action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the
    notification issued under Section 4, sub-section (1 ), is
    stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.

          Explanation 2.-Where the compensation to be                 8
    awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds
    of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such
    compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid
    out of public revenu~s.

           (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official   C
    Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the
    locality in which the land is situate of which at least one
    shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall
    cause public notice of the substance of such declaration
    to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the        D
    last of the date of such publication and the giving of such
    public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of
    the publication of the declaration), and such declaration
    shall state the district or other territorial division in which
    the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its      E
    approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been
    made of the lar\d, the place where such plan may be
    inspected.

          (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence
                                                                      F
    that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a
    company, as the case may be; and, after making such
    declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the
    land in manner hereinafter appearing."

      12. Among the above provisions, Section 4 of the Act            G
empowers the appropriate Government to initiate proceedings
for the acquisition of land. Section 4(1) of the Act lays down
that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that
land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any
public purpose or for a company, then a notification to that          H
    46       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A   effect is required to be published in (i) the Official Gazette; (ii)
    two daily newspapers having circulation in that locality of which,
    one shall be in the regional language; and (iii) it is also
    incumbent on the part of the Collector to cause public notice
    of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient
B   places in the locality. It is relevant to mention that the last of the
    dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice
    is treated as the date of the publication of the notification. In
    terms of Section 4(2), any officer authorized by the Government
    in this behalf and his servants or workmen can enter upon and
c   survey and take levels of any land in such locality, dig or bore
    into the subsoil and can do all other acts necessary for
    ascertaining that the land is suitable for the purpose of
    acquisition. The officers concerned can set out the boundaries .
    of the land proposed to be acquired and the intended line of
0   the work, if any, proposed to be made on it. They are also
    permitted to mark such levels, boundaries and lines by placing
    marks and cutting trenches and can cut down and clear away
    any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle for the san:ie
    purpose. However, neither the officer nor his servants or
    workmen can enter into any building or upon any enclosed court
E   or garden attached to a dwelling house without the consent of
    the occupier and previously giving such occupier at least 7 days
    notice in writing of their intention to do so.

         13. In terms of Section 5A, any person interested in any
F   land notified under Section 4(1) may, within 30 days from the
    date of publication of the notification, submit objection in writing
    against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land in the
    locality to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector is required to
    give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person
G   or by any person authorized by him or by his pleader. After
    hearing the objections and making such further inquiry, as he
    may think necessary, the Collector shall make a report in
    respect of the land notified under Section 4(1) containing his
    recommendations on the objections and forward the same to
H   the Government along with the record of the proceedings held
V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF 47
         HARYANA [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
by him. It is open to the Collector to make different reports in A
respect of different parcels of land proposed to be acquired.

     14. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider
the first submission made by learned senior counsel for the
appellant-Company viz., the notification was not in consonance
                                                                     8
with the requirements laid down under Section 4(1) of the Act.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company argued
before this Court that in the light of the language used under
Section 4(1) of the Act, all the three modes of publication
mentioned therein are mandatory. He further asserted that
since the notification was not published at the conspicuous          C
places of the locality concerned, neither the lessee of the
appellant-Company nor the appellant-Company came to know
about the same. It is also asserted that no individual notice was
served. In view of the same, according to learned senior
counsel, the appellant-Company was deprived of its valuable          D
right to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. He further
contended that, it is an opportunity given to the land owners or
person in possession of lands to make a representation under
Section 5A of the Act. To put it clear, the purpose of publication
of the notification is two-fold, first, to ensure that adequate      E
publicity is given so that land owners and persons interested
will have an opportunity to file their objections under Section
SA of the Act, and second, to give the land owners/occupants
a notice that it shall be lawful for any officer authorized by the
government to carry out the activities enumerated in sub-section     F
(2) of Section 4 of the Act. This position has been reiterated in
several decisions of this Court vide Khub Chand & Ors. vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1967) 1 SCR 120, J&K Housing
Board and Anr. vs. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors.~,
(2011) 10 SCC 714 and Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms P.              G
Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 210.

     15. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
respondent-State asserted that the authorities have complied
with all the three modes of publication. To test the above
statements, we verified the written statement of Shri L.B. Verma,    H
    48       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector,
  Sonipat filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein before the
  High Court. Though in para 6, it is stated that the notification
  was published in two daily newspapers, namely, National Herald
  dated 02.01.2006 in English and Amar Ujala in Hindi dated
B 31.12.2005 but there is no whisper about the publication of the
  substance of the notification in the locality as provided under
  Section 4( 1) of the Act. Except the above said written statement
  dated 15.11.2007, no other material such as counter affidavit
  or reply had been projected before the High Court as well as
C before this Court in support of their stand. In fact, on
  09.08.2010, when the matter was called for hearing, learned
  counsel appearing for the State submitted that "in view of the
  counter filed before the High Court, no separate counter is
  being filed here". In view of the above, it is clear that in spite of
  knowing the specific ground raised by the appellant about the
0
  non-publication of the substance of the notification as
  prescribed under the Act in the locality concerned, neither the
  State nor the Land Acquisition Collector availed the opportunity
  of filing reply refuting the same. In such circumstances, we have
  no other option except to hold that there was no publication of ,
E the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act
  in the locality which is held to be mandatory. It is also relevant
  to point out that by effecting such publication in the locality, it
  would be possible for the person in possession, namely, either
  the owner or lessee to make their representation/objection in
r the enquiry under Section 5A. In addition to the same, such
  person "owner or occupier" is entitled to file their objections
  within 30 days from the date of publication in the locality and
  by non-publication of the same in the locality as provided under
  the Act, the owner or occupier loses his valuable right. For these
G reasons also, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be
  quashed.

         16. Coming to the contention raised by learned senior
    counsel that the appellant-Company itself is running an industry
H   on the date of the notification, we are of the view that there is
V.K.M. KATTHA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF 49
         HARYANA [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
no justification in acquiring a running industrial unit for           A
industrialization of the area. By placing acceptable materials,
the appellant-Company has demonstrated that the construction
at the site in question is A-Class construction and the fact that
Rector No. 75 itself, which is a substantial part of the area, has
been left out from the acquisition, the impugned notifications        B
qua the running industrial unit cannot be sustained in law. The
appellant-Company, in support of the same, has also placed
copy of the sanctioned building plan of the Company dated
 18.03.1994, copy of the sale deed dated 10.05.1994, copy of
the communication of the Director, Urban Estates Development          c
 Haryana, Chandigarh dated 23.03.1982, copy of the certificate
by the Haryana Financial Corporation dated 14.05.2003, copy
of no objectior:i certificate from the Haryana State Pollution
Control Board dated 17.10.1996 and copy of lease deed in
favour of M/s Anand Agro Products dated 05.05.2003. On
                                                                      D
going through the materials placed, we are satisfied that the
appellant-Company has established that it is a running industrial
 unit even prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and
 the appellant has established its case on this ground also.

    17. Coming to the last contention, viz., exclusion of more        E
than 76 acres of land, in the writ petition as well as in the
grounds of appeal, the appellant has furnished details of the
area released from acquisition in Rector-75 itself which is as
under:
                                                                      F
  S.No. Name of indstrial         Khasra No.       Area left from
        Concern                                    Acquisition

  1.     Natraj Stationery        75/11/2/2
         Products Pvt. Ltd.       2/13               1-6
                                  12/2/1             1-1              G

  2.     Moja shoes (Pvt) Ltd. 75/11/2               1-6
                               76/16
                               %                     0-6
                                                                      H
    50       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 10 S.C.R.


A    3.      Haryana Coir (P) Ltd. 75/12/2/1          2-14
                                   75/13/1            4-0
                                   11 /2/1            1-4
                                   12/1/1             1-6
                                   75/12/2/1          2-14
B         As rightly pointed out, if the appellant-Company had the
    opportunity of participating in the enquiry under Section 5A, it
    would be open to the Company to make a representation for
    exclusion like others and there would be every possibility for
    the State Government to accede to the request since the
C   appellant-Company is running an industry which is similar to the
    public purpose for which lands were being acquired. During the
    course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellant has
    also brought to our notice an approved sketch about the
    excluded lands and location of the appellant-Company which
D   is on the extreme corner of the acquired lands. In other words,
    even if the Government or the authority concerned excludes the
    lands of the appellant-Company, there would not be any
    difficulty in executing the scheme. The said claim of the
    appellant is acceptable.
E
         18. Under these circumstances, we set aside the
    impugned order of the High Court dated 08.07.2008 and quash
    the land acquisition proceedings insofar as the appellant-
    Company is concerned. The Civil Appeal is allowed. No order
F   as to costs.

    B.B.B.                                        Appeal allowed.