THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.15082 of 2007 Date : 28-4-2011 Between : Diocese of Nellore Society, Represented by its Vicar General, Rev.Msgr.P.Ignatius, Nellore .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification R.C.G1.3158/2007, dated 21-6-2007 issued by respondent No.1 and published in the District Gazette. The main ground on which the Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has issued notification under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in stead of under Section 4(1) of the Act and therefore the very notification itself is without jurisdiction and unenforceable. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that reference to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act in the notification published in the newspaper of the regional language is an obvious mistake and that in the notification published in the English daily newspaper, namely, Deccan Chronicle, the provision is correctly shown. She further stated that the petitioner has already filed its objections to the impugned notification and that even before those objections were considered and disposed of, it has filed the present Writ Petition without disclosing the fact of its filing the objections. As regards the plea of the petitioner that the notification published in the Telugu daily newspaper is defective, a perusal of the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader shows that the provision is correctly mentioned in the Gazette notification as well as in the notice published in the Deccan Chronicle. As rightly contended by her, reference to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act in the publication made in the Telugu newspaper is an obvious mistake. The law is well settled that mere wrong quotation of the statutory provision will not by itself vitiate the proceedings if the power to issue such a notification is traceable to the statute. Therefore, the impugned notification cannot be set-aside only on this ground. As regards the merits of the case, the petitioner has not disputed that it has already filed its objections to the impugned notification and that these objections have not been disposed of till now. Therefore, it is not appropriate for this court to adjudicate the Writ Petition on merits. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to be held by the respondents under Section 5-A of the Act. Needless to observe that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order that may be passed on its objections, it is entitled to avail appropriate remedy. As a sequel, interim order dated 9-8-2007 stands vacated and WPMP No.18986 of 2007 and WVMP No.5495/2010 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 28-4-2011 AM