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, 1894 will be the date of publication or not ?

(2.) The few relevant facts are :An extent of Ac. 4-0 1/2 gunta comprised in S.No. 688 belonging to the petitioner in W.P.No. 3723/83 and Ac, 14-28 gunta's in R.S.No. 766 belonging to the petitioners in W.P.No. 11810/85, situate in Shamshabad village. Ranga Reddy district were sought to be acquired under Section 4(1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 ('the Act' for short) by publishing the same in the Gazette on 16-9-1982 for construction of Truck Terminal-curn-Residential Complex under the aegis of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority ('Huda' for short). The said notification is challenged on the grounds inter alia that the petitioner in W.P.No. 3723/83 raised grape garden on Ac. 3-00 of land and the petitioners in W.P No. J1810/85 raised mango trees, tamarind trees, neem trees etc., by investing huge suras 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 Officer of the HUDA it is stated that the HUDA sent a requisition letter for acquiring the land for TrucK Terminal-cum-Residential 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 tearing 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 16-10-1982 and copies were.supplid 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 16-10-1982. The same was received on 29-10-1982 by the predecessor of the 2nd respondent and its substance was immediately published in the locality on 29-10*1982. Hence the allegation that the notification is void for want of publication of the substance is incorrect. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 5 of the Act was conducted on 20-12-1982, objections were submitted on 17-3-1983; the same were overruled and eventually the declaration, under Section 6 was published on 6-9-1985.