HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.708, 1006 and 1883 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners herein are all small agriculturists and are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire their lands for providing house sites to those whose lands were damaged/destroyed in the floods which hit Kurnool District in October, 2009. Consequent upon a notification being issued, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was invoked, and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The declaration issued, under Section 6 of the Act, is under challenge in these writ petitions on several grounds. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine any of the other contentions as the Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed, and the Section 6 declaration quashed, as the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act were issued on the same day. Facts, in brief, are that a notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act, was issued on 07-01-2010 for acquiring lands in Sy.Nos.83/2, 84, 91/2 etc., of Mamidalapadu Village, Kurnool District. The said notification was published in the Gazette on 07- 01-2010; in Eenadu and Vaartha Rekha Telugu Newspapers on 09- 01-2010; and the public notice, of the substance of the notification, in the locality, on 29-01-2010. The Section 6 declaration was published in the Gazette on 08-01-2010. The said declaration was later published in Saakshi and Vaartha Rekha Telugu Newspapers on 10-01-2010; and the public notice, of the substance of the declaration, in the locality on 29-01-2010. It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that public notice, of the substance of the Section 6 declaration, being caused in the locality on 29-01-2010, on the same day as the public notice, of the substance of the Section 4(1) notification, was caused in the locality on 29-01-2010, falls foul of the Section 17(4) of the Act which requires the Section 6 declaration to be issued after the date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would submit that, since the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 07-01-2010, publication of the Section 6 declaration in the Gazette a day thereafter on 08-01- 2010 was valid; and the mere fact that the public notice, of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was caused in the locality on the same day as the public notice, of the substance of the Section 6 declaration was caused in the locality i.e., on 29-01-2010 would not render the Section 6 declaration invalid. Learned Government Pleader would place reliance on A.P.Sareen v. State of U.P.[1] and Managing Director, APSRTC v. M.Kamalakumari[2]. Section 4(1) of the Act enables the appropriate Government, if it appears that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, to cause a notification to that effect to be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulated in that locality, (of which at least one should be in regional language), and the Collector to cause a public notice, of the substance of such notification, to be given at convenient places in the locality. Section 4(1) stipulates that the last of the dates, of such publication and the giving of such public notice, is to be referred to as “the date of the publication of the notification”. As such the last of the dates, among (i) publication in the Gazette, (ii) publication in the newspapers, and (iii) public notice of its substance in the locality, is to be reckoned as the date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification. The last of the dates is the public notice caused, of the substance in the locality, on 29-01-2010. The date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification, in the instant case, is therefore 29-01-2010. Section 6 of the Act relates to a declaration to be issued that the land is required for a public purpose. Section 6(2) of the Act requires the declaration to be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers and the Collector is required to cause the substance of such notice to be published in the locality. Section 6(2) of the Act makes it clear that the last of the dates, of such publication and the giving of such public notice, is the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. While the Section 6 declaration was published in the Gazette on 08-01-2010, it was published in the newspapers on 10-01-2010 and the public notice of its substance caused in the locality on 29-01-2010. The last of the dates of the Section 6 declaration is 29-01-2010, and the date of publication of the Section 6 declaration is, therefore, to be reckoned as 29-01-2010. Section 17(4) of the Act enables the Government to declare that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply and, if it does so, to direct that a declaration, under Section 6 of the Act, be caused in respect of the land at any time after the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. As noted hereinabove, in the instant case, the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is 29- 01-2010 and it is only after that date could a declaration, under Section 6 of the Act, have been made. In the case on hand, however, the date of publication of the Section 6 declaration is also 29-01-2010. As the date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification and the Section 6 declaration is on the same date i.e. 29-01-2010, the requirement of Section 17(4) of the Act, that the Section 6 declaration be made after the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, is not satisfied. I n A.P.Sareen1 the Supreme Court merely observed that when the Government forms an opinion that the lands are urgently needed for a public purpose, a notification under Section 4(1) can be issued and published while dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and, after giving a gap of one day, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act can be published in the Gazette. The dates of publication of the Section 4(1) notification in the newspapers, and the public notice of its substance caused in the locality, is not reflected in the said judgment. As noted hereinabove, Sections 4(1) and 6(2) of the Act itself requires the last of the dates to be taken as the date of publication of the notification/declaration. Public notice, of the substance of the Section 4(1) notification being caused in the locality on the same day as the public notice of the substance of the Section 6 declaration, was caused in the locality on 29-1-2010, is contrary to Section 17(4) of the Act, that the Section 6 declaration should be published after the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In M.Kamalakumari2, the Section 6 declaration was published in the Gazette much after the notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published in the Official Gazette, in two local dailies, and even after public notice of its substance was caused in the locality. It is in this factual matrix that the Division bench held that, since the Section 6 declaration was published in the Official Gazette after publication of the Section 4(1) notification, the contention, that the Section 6 declaration should be set aside, was not justified. The words “the last dates of such publication and giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the notification/declaration”, referred to in Section 4(1) and Section 6(2) of the Act, were not brought to the notice of either the Supreme Court in A.P. Sareeen1 or the Division bench of this Court in M. Kamalakumari2. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assume to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The case is only an authority for what it actually decides. It cannot be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it. (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra[3]; Quinn v. Loathem[4]). Judgments ought not to be read as statutes. They are an authority for what they decide. A word here or a word there should not be read out of context. (Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju5) Reliance placed by the Learned Government Pleader, on A.P. Sareen1 and M.Kamalakumari2, is therefore misplaced. In the cases on hand, since the Section 6 declaration was published on the same date as the Section 4(1) notification i.e. 29- 01-2010, publication of the Section 6 declaration falls foul of Section 17(4) of the Act which requires the Section 6 declaration to be made after the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The declaration, under Section 6 of the Act, is liable to be and is, accordingly, quashed. The Writ Petitions are allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:29.04.2010 Usd/asp [1] 1997(9) SCC 359 [2] 2002(2) ALT 180(DB) [3] AIR 1968 SC 647 [4] 1901 AC 495 5 AIR 1990 AP 171 (FB)