N MANI PRAKASH Vs. COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short and the sole but substantial question that is involved in these writ petitions is whether the date contained in the Gazette of a notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act will be the date of publication or not ?

(2.) The few relevant 'acts are :- An extent of Ac. 4-01 guntas comprised in S. No. 688 belonging to the petitioner in WP No. 3723/83 and Ac. 14-28 guntas in R. S. No. 766 belonging to the petitioners in WP No. 11810/85, situate in Shamshabad village, Ranga Reddy District were sought to be acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) by publishing the same in the Gazette on 16-9-82 for construction of Truck Terminal-cum-Residential Complex under the aegis of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority ('HUDA') for short). The said notification is challenged on the grounds inieralia that the petitioner in WP No. 3723/ 83 raised grape garden on Ac. 3-00 of land and the petitioners in WP No, 11810/85 raised mango trees, tamarind trees, neem trees, etc., by investing huge sums of money and, therefore, the acquisition is contrary to the Government instructions issued in this behalf. The substance of the said notification has not been published in the village at all.

(3.) In the counter filed by the Land Acquisition Oificer of the HUDA, it is stated that the HUDA sent a requisition letter for acquiring the land for Truck Terminal-cum-Residentia! complex. The Collector, the 1st respondent herein, who was delegated with powers by the Government, approved the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and it was sent for publication in the A .P. Gazette bearing No. 37-A to be published in the usual course on 16-9 82. Due to administrative delays in the Office of the Director of Printing Press the Gazette was actually printed on 16-10-82 and copies were supplied to the Government and Information Department on the same dates It was published with a back date 16-9-1982. Hence, its real date of publication is 16-10-82. The same was received on 29-10-82 by the predecessor of the 2nd respondent and its substance was immediately published in the locality on 29-10-82. Hence the allegation that the notification is void for want of publication of the substance is incorrect. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 20-12-82, objections were submitted on 17-3-83, the same were overruled and eventually the declaration under Section 6 was published on 6-9-1985.