(1.) In this review petition, the point that is sought to be canvassed is that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been published in the name of the Collector and not the District Collector and, therefore, it is fatal to the Section 4(1) notification and so, the same will have to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in V. V. Ramachandra Rao. v. State, AIR 1980 Andh Pra 68, to which 1 am a party, wherein since the approval to the notification was accorded by the District Revenue Officer, it was held that the notification was not valid and so, the same was quashed. In that connection it was observed : --
(2.) It may, however, be made clear that in this case one Sri P. Ramakantha Rao, IAS, who worked as District Collector in point of lime from 26-4-1982 to 13-9-1983 personally signed both the draft notification as well as the draft declaration. A communication dt. 7-2-1987 addressed by the District Collector, Krishna, reads as under : --
(3.) Hence, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, I am of the view that since the notification has been in point , of fact, actually approved by the District Collector, the omission of prefix District in the printed notification would not be fatal to Section notification. It is true that under the A.P. General Clauses Act Collector and District Collectorl are defined separately and therefore there is a distinction between the Collector and the District Collector. But since in this case, there is positive material on record to show that the draft notification has been actually approved by the District Collector concerned, it has been issued in the printed notification as collector only. Therefore, this case should be treated as a singular one when it is held that the provisions of the Act stand complied with in view of the reason mentioned above. This decision should be confined to the peculiar facts of this case. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.