ROVURI HYMAVATI Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts concerning these two writ petitions are connected. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. By a notification issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act', for short), the Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed to acquire 152 acres and 20 guntas of land situate in Ramapuram village, Kodad Taluk, Nalgonda district, for the establishment of a Cement Factory of Priyadar- shini Cements Limited, It is said that out of the aforesaid extent of land, 24 acres and 29 guntas of land is owned by the two petitioners in W.P. 11828/85. The 14 petitioners in W.P. 11844/85 together own 76 acres and 11 guntas. The petitioners challenge the validity of the acquisition of the land in these two writ petitions. Sri S. Vankat Rsddy, learned counsel for the two petitioners in W.P. 11828/85 led the arguments and Sri Venkata Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.11844/85 adopted the argument of Sri Venkat Reddy.

(2.) Although the acquisition was challenged on a variety of grounds, Sri Venkat Reddy confined himself only to the following grounds at the time of arguments: (i) Notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act as well as the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act have not been published in the Official Gazette. (ii) Declaration under Sec 6 of the Act was not made and published after the date of publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. (iii) There is no justification for invoking urgency provisions under Sec. 17(4) of the Act and consequently dispensing with the enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act, (iv) In invoking the urgency provisions the State Government, first respondent herein, violated the provisions contained in Rule 4 and Rule 9(2) of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(3.) Taking up thefirst contention, the learned counsel submits that the publication under Sec.4(1) of the Act is required to be published in the "Official Gazette". Similarly, Sec.6(2) of the Act requires the declaration to be published in the "Official Gazette". It is pointed out that in the present case there was no publication in the Official Gazette at all. The publication was made only in the Nalgonda district Gazette. According to the learned counsel, District Gazette cannot ba considered as Official Gazette and consequently there was violation of the terms of Sec.4(1) and also Sec.6 of the Act. Learned counsel invites attention to Sec.4(1)applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, as modified by A.P. (Amendment) Act 22 of 1976, and points out that Official Gazette and District Gazette are variously specified in the Section, in that a notification issued by the Government has to be published in the Official Gazette while a notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act by the District Collector has to be published in theDistrict Gazette. The description of the two Gazettes separately in Sec. 4 (1) of the Act as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, according to the learned caunsel, clearly indicates that Offical Gazette is not the same as a District Gazette. The omission to publish the notification under Sec 4(1) as well as the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act in the Official Gazette, contends the learned counsel, is fatal to the acquisition proceedings.