SUBBA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arises out of Land Acquisition proceedings. The Notification dated 6-11-81 issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is questioned on the following three grounds. (1) The Notification dated 6-11-81 was not published in the locality and at any rate not within thirty days. (2) The report of the Collector which was favourable to the petitioner was ignored. (3) The procedings are not bona fide and the same are liable to be set aside.

(2.) The acquisition in question was made for the benefit of the 3rd respondent Surya Chandra Paper Mill. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent raised the contention that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Pahwa vs. LT. Governor of Delhi the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Yadaiah vs. Govt of A.P. holding that the publication of the Notification in the locality must be done simultaneously with the publication of the Notification in the Gazette is no longer good law and hence the delay in publishing this notification is not fatal. The notification dated 6-11-81 was published or 14-1-82. He relied upon the above judgment of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that the time factor is not a vital element in Sec. 4(1) and there is no warrant for reading the words "simultaneously or immediately thereafter" in Sec. 4 (1). It is further held :

(3.) The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are expropriatory in character and every step in the acquisition must be followed scrupulously. It is no doubt true that when once no time limit is imposed for publication of the notification in the locality the Supreme Court took the view that the time factor m publishing the notification is not fatal. Once the provisions of the Act stipulate the time limit in the acquisition proceedings they must be treated as mandatory and any failure to observe those provisions shall make the proceedings void. Hence 1 am of the opinion that the Amending Act which was given retrospective effect from 12-9-75 clearly governs the case and the notification published in the locality after forty days makes the notification void and accordingly the impugned notification is quashed. In view of this it is unnecessary to go into other questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.