N VENKATALAKSHMAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac. 13.75 cents of land situated in Dhone Village bearing S.No. 376/1. Out of the said land an extent of Ac. 6.00 is proposed for acquisition. The petitioner came to know of this fact only on 21-7-1995. A notice under Section 9(3) and Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter called the Act, has been served on him(sic her). He (she) later came to know that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been published in Krishna Patrika dated 23-3-1995 which has no circulation in the place of her residence. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on the next day. The notification published in the said newspaper merely reads, that the land is required for public purpose, ana nothing more. Infact the said notification shows that the land situated at Udumulapadu Village is being acquired, resulting in misleading her to ignore the said notification as her land is situated in Dhone Village only. Enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act has also been dispensed with, and declaration under Section 6 was published. As the notification as published under Section 4(1) is illegal, the subsequent notification under Section 6 also is invalid. Hence the Writ Petition.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool it is stated that Mandal Revenue Officer has selected an extent of Ac. 6.00 for provision of house-sites to the weaker sections of Dhone Town and initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings and Draft Notification under Section 4(1) was accordingly published on 28-2-1995 stating that the land is required for providing house-sites to S.C and S.T people. The said notification was also published in Praja Shakthi as well as Krishna Patrika daily telugu newspapers on 23-3-1995. The name of the village Udumulapadu was wrongly published in Krishna Patrika by mistake instead of Dhone Village. However, the name of the Village is correctly published in newspapers in draft declaration. Hence, there is no infirmity in publication.

(3.) Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that non specification of public purpose in the notification is fatal to draft notification. According to him, the publication in the telugu newspaper Krishna Patrika does not disclose the public purpose and therefore, invalid. However, the learned Government Pleader contended that the publication in the Gazette on 28-2-1995 clearly shows that the public purpose is for providing house-sites to S.Cs and S.Ts and therefore, there cannot be any infirmity in the draft notification as published.