SHAIK KANNAM SAHEB Vs. DIST COLLECTOR KHAMMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been referred to a Full Bench pursuant to an order of a learned single Judge dated 7-3-1989 because of the different views taken in some cases on the questions of manner and period of publication of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (hereinafter called the Act) in the light of the amendment made by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 9 of 1983 and the Central Amendment Act 68/1984. The learned Judge has pointed out that, while in a long line of authorities of a single Judge it was held that the publication of substance of the notification beyond forty days of the gazette has to be quashed, a Bench of this Court in a decision reported in Govt. of A.P. v. C. Adilakshmamma 1988 (2) APLJ 224 : (AIR 1989 AP 342) has held that publication of the substance within forty days of the newspaper publication is valid. It is also pointed out by him that another Bench decision in W.A.No.175 of 1987 dated 23-2-1989 has held that the newspaper publication can be made prior to the notification published in the gazette. During the hearing it was brought to our notice that a recent Bench judgment in W.A.No.1309 of 1987 dated 10-4-1990 has taken a view that publication of substance before the publication in the newspapers cannot be said to be invalid. In the said judgment the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in M/s Garg Farms, Delhi v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 Allahabad 1 has been referred to. The judgment in W.A.No.723 of 1988 dated 25-6-1990 by a Bench presided over by the Chief Justice has set aside the judgment of a single Judge holding that the publication in the newspapers also should be within forty days of the gazette. Thus, there are several shades of controversies on the steps and the period within which notifications contemplated by S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act have to be published. Coming to the facts of this case, the decision to proceed with acquisition of the land under S. 4(1) of the Act was taken on 13-4-1986 and it was published in the gazette on 2-5-1986. It was published in both the local newspapers on 13-8-1986. The substance was published in the locality on 15-9-1986. Though urgency clause under S. 17 was invoked and 5-A enquiry dispensed with in the 4(1) notification, but, because possession was not taken within ninety days thereafter as required by S. 17(5) of the Act (as introduced by Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 9 of 1983) S.5-A enquiry was held. Notice of 5-A enquiry was also issued to persons concerned (i.e. those who had filed objections) on 23-1-1987. After the enquiry and considering the report under S. 5-A a declaration to acquire the land under S. 6 was made on 6-8-1987 which was published in the gazette dated 18-8-1987 and two local newspapers on 13-9-1987. The writ petition was filed on 1-7-1988 and interim stay of passing of award and dispossession was granted in W.P.M.P. No. 12257 of 1988 by this Court.

(2.) In this case the gazette publication under S. 4(1) is followed by publication in the newspapers and then the substance in the locality. But, there is a gap of more than forty days between the date of publication in the gazette and the publication in the newspapers and the publication of substance in the locality. The question is whether the acquisition proceedings have become invalid because of the publication in newspapers and the locality beyond forty days of gazette publication and have to be struck down?

(3.) During the hearing as a doubt has arisen about the continued validity of the State Amendment Act 9 of 1983 by which S. 4(1) is amended requiring publication of substance of the notification in the locality within forty days of the date of gazette after the amendment of S.4 by the Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984, notice was issued to the learned Advocate-General by an order dated 3-8-1990.