* THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.18659 of 2008 %Dated 01.09.2008 # Ch. Lokanandh. …Petitioner. and $ District Collector, W.G. District, Eluru. and others. …Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Mr.N.Subba Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents:G.P. for Land Acquistion. < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18659 of 2008 Between: Ch. Lokanandh S/o. Subbarayudu @ Gandhi R/o. Doddipatavari Thota Street, Tanuku, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, W.G. District, Eluru. 2 Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, W.G. District. 3 Tahsildar, Podur Mandal, W.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the 4(1) Notiﬁcation issued by the 1st respondent in Roc.No.SW/187/2007(42), dated 27.4.2007 published in Visalandhra daily, Vijayawada Edition, dated 29.4.2007 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly Section 6 of the said Act and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to desist themselves from proceeding further pursuant to the 4(1) Notiﬁcation issued by the 1st respondent in Roc.No.SW/187/2007(42), dated 27.4.2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Acs.2.23 cents of land situated in survey No.327/2 of Pandit Villuru Village, Podur Mandal, West Godavari District. The ﬁrst respondent issued a notiﬁcation, dated 27.04.2007, proposing to acquire the said land, along with two other bits of one Mr.Samayamanthula Satya Naga Venkata Subramanya Janaraja Gupta. A notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) inviting objections, was issued. The petitioner states that he submitted his objections within the stipulated time, and so far, no declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. He contends that with the expiry of one year from 24.07.2007, it becomes impermissible for the respondents to issue declaration. Reliance is placed upon 1st proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, as amended by the A.P. State Legislature. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that with the expiry of one year from the date of notiﬁcation, the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Act virtually becomes inoperative or invalid. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition obtained instructions at the stage of admission and made extensive submissions. It is pleaded that the owner of the other land, which is notiﬁed for acquisition under the same notiﬁcation, ﬁled W.P.No.1183 of 2007 before this Court and an order of interim stay was in force between 11.06.2007 and 17.01.2008. According to her, the respondents have time till 02.12.2008 to publish notiﬁcation under Section 6 of the Act, inasmuch as the period during which the stay operated has to be excluded. The notiﬁcation issued proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner and the land of another individual was published on 27.04.2007. The A.P. State Legislature amended Section 6 of the Act to the eﬀect that a declaration under Section 6 of the Act must be published within one year from the date of publication of notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. The consequences of non- publication are also provided for under 1st proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. It reads as under: “Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notiﬁcation under Section 4, sub-section (1):-- (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967) but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification: Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenue of some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. [Explanation 1:- In computing any of the periods referred to in the ﬁrst proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. Explanation 2:- Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of the public revenues].” From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that a notiﬁcation under Section 6 must be published within a period of one year and failure in this regard, would entail in the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) becoming inoperative, or invalid, in law. It may be true that the owner of another item of land, which was sought to be acquired through the same notiﬁcation, had ﬁled writ petition and obtained interim order on 11.06.2007. The Act itself provides for exclusion of the period, during which, any order of stay operated, in the context of calculating the one year from the date of publication of notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. That, however, would operate only against the person who obtained such an order. The mere fact that the land of the petitioner is covered by same notiﬁcation hardly constitutes any justiﬁcation for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, vis-à-vis the land of the petitioner. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is allowed and the notiﬁcation, dated 27.04.2007, insofar as it relates to the land of the petitioner, is set aside. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the respondents to issue fresh notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, if they intend to acquire the land of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.01.09.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note: Mark L.R copies. GJ