THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.802 OF 2004 DATED: 07-07-2011. BETWEEN: A.P.INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARISHRAM BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD .. APPELLANT AND GADIRAJU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.802 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: ( PER JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) Heard Sri.P.Rajagopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-the A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and there is no representation on behalf of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner either yesterday or today when the matter is taken up for hearing. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2003 allowing the writ petition and quashing the notification issued under section 4(1) and the declaration issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) insofar as these pertain to an extent of Ac.1-65 cents in Sy.No.177/1A in Peddapuram village, East Godavari District. The notification under section 4(1) and declaration under section 6 of the Act were quashed on the ground that these were approved on the same day on 16-5-2002 and were published in the District Gazette on 23.5.2002 and 04.06.2002 respectively, while Section 4(1) notification was published in the telugu vernacular newspaper on 22.6.2002 and section 6 declaration on 24.6.2002, the notification under section 4(1) and the declaration under section 6 were ordered for printing on 23.5.2002 and 4.6.2002 and this process was contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P v. RADHEY SHYAM NIGAM[1]. The reason recorded by the learned single Judge for quashing the notification under section 4(1) was that there was no stay in any proceedings after the section 4(1) notification and in view of the invalidity of Sec.6 declaration, the time has now lapsed for issuing declaration under section 6 fresh in view of the law declared in PADMASUNDARA RAO v. STATE OF TAMILNADU[2]. The relevant facts that require to be noted are that the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was issued in respect of the schedule property on 23.5.2002, in the Gazettee and the paper publication of the said notification was on 22.6.2002. Urgency under section 17(4) was invoked and enquiry under section 5-A dispensed with. However, the declaration under section 6 was published in the Gazettee on 4.6.2002, while the newspaper publication of this declaration was on 24.6.2002. Sri.P.Rajagopala Rao, learned counsel for the appellant would also bring to our notice that the learned single Judge erred in observing that there was no order of any court granting stay of further proceedings in the acquisition process. It is pointed out that in the writ petition there was an order granting status-quo, dated 19.7.2002. In the 1st cited judgment the Supreme Court declared the legal position; that where urgency is invoked under section 17(4) and enquiry is dispensed with, Sec.6 declaration has to be made after publication of the notification under section 4(1). However, in MOHAN SINGH v. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA[3] it was clarified that the expression “herein after” in Sec.6(1) and Sec.4(1); the absence of a similar expression and absence of the expression “the last of the dates of the publication.” of the three steps required under section 4(1) or section 6(2) viz., in Section 17(4); publication in the gazettee, the publication in a local newspaper and the notification in the locality are not all the components of the requirements under section 17(2) and therefore where possession of land is urgently needed or immediately required, they are required to cause publication of the notification under section 4(1), in the official gazettee and within a short while thereafter a declaration under section 6 could be made and published under section 6(1). The Supreme Court in the judgment 3rd cited considered the very question whether it is mandatory in such situation that only after publication of the notification in the gazettee and in two local newspapers and of giving of notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality, the exercise of power under section 17(4) should be made. The Apex Court held that Section 4(1) is mandatory for the exercise of power under section 17(4) and it is not necessary that all the three steps enumerated in Section 4(1) should be complied with before making the declaration under section 6(1) and have it published for directing the Collector to take possession under sections 17(1) and (2). The following observations of the Supreme Court are apposite in the context: “ ….. What is needed is that there should be a gap of time of at least a day between the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and of the declaration under Section 6(1). Herein, we dispose of the controversy and agree with Shri Shanti Bhushan that the date of the notification and declaration published as mentioned in the Gazette is conclusive but not the actual date of printing in the Gazette. This interpretation of ours would serve the public purpose, namely, the official functions are duly discharged. When the land is urgently needed under Section 17(1), notice under Section 9(1) would be given to the owner and steps would be taken to and resume its possession after the expiry of 15 days. If it is needed urgently under Section 17(2), even without waiting for 15 days on issue of notice under Section 9(1) to the owner, the appropriate Government would direct the Collector to take possession of the land immediately. If the publication in the newspapers and in the locality is also insisted upon as preliminary to the exercise of power under Section 17(4) which are mandatory requirements and until last of them occurs, the immediate or urgent necessity to take possession of the land under Section 17(1) or 17(2) before making the award would be easily defeated by dereliction of duty by the subordinate officers or by skilful manoeuvre. The appropriate Government is required to take the decision for acquisition of the land and to consider the urgency or emergency and to make the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 and have them published in the Gazette that the land acquired under Section 4(1) is needed for public purpose; they become conclusive under Section 6; and to give direction to the Collector to take its possession. The publication in the newspapers and giving of notice of the substance of the notification at the convenient places in the locality are required to be done by the Collector authorised by the Government under Section 7 and his subordinate staff. If dereliction of duty is given primacy, delay deflects public justice to meet urgent situation by the acts of subordinate officers for any reason whatsoever. Until that is done and the last of the dates occurs, Government would be unable to act swiftly for the public purpose to take immediate possession envisaged under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 17 and they would be easily defeated or frustrated.” In view of the ratio deducible from the judgment 3rd cited above, the conclusion of the learned single Judge that the declaration in the instant case issued under section 6(1) of the Act before the newspaper publication of the Section 4(1) notification, but after the gazetting of such notification, invalidates the section 6 declaration, does not command acceptance. On the aforementioned premises, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. There shall however be no order as to costs. Dt: 07-07-2011. ( G.RAGHURAM, J ) ( P.DURGA PRASAD, J ) TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.802 OF 2004 ( Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Justice G.Raghuram ) DATED: 07-07-2011. [1] AIR 1989 SC 682 = (1989) 1 SCC 591 [2] 2002(2) SUPREME 359 [3] (1997) 9 SCC 132