M RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. COLLECTOR KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the notification issued by tha Joint Collector, Karimnagar, under Section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 is called in question on the ground that he is not empowered to issue such a notification. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Collector alone has the power to fssue such a notification.

(2.) In K. Vamana Rao V. Land Acquisition Officer (A. I. R. 1979 A. P. 264) and V. V. Ramachandra Rao v. State (A.I.R. 1980 A. P. 68) the two Division Benches of this Court have held that the notification issued by the District Revenue Officer is bad, since he has no power to issue such a notification and that it is only the District Collector that has the power.

(3.) In the instant case, it is the Joint Collector that has issued the notification. After verification, the Government Pleader also admits that the notification was issued by the Joint Collector. Even then, it does not make any difference and the ratio laid down in the above two decisions applies to a case where the notification is issued by the Joint Collector Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 lays down that if the appropriate Government or the District Collector is of the opinion that a particular land in any locality is needed for a public purpose, a notification to that affect shall be issued. The expression "District Collector" is defined in Section 3 (8) of the ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1891 thus: