* THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + Writ Petition No.18877 of 2006 % DT.21.06.2011 # Ethakota Adilaxmi …Petitioner Vs. $ Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and another … Respondents ^ Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Srinivas Karra ! Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition < Gist: > Head note: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.18877 of 2006 Dated 21st June, 2011 Between: Ethakota Adilaxmi …Petitioner And Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Srinivas Karra Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash notification in ROC No.F5/SW/290/2006, dated 30.06.2006, issued by respondent No.1 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and published in A.P.Gazette, dated 03.07.2006. I have heard Sri Srinivas Karra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of Acs.2.07 cents of dry land situated in Survey Nos.105/1B, 1C, 2D, 217/2 and 122/3 of Muddur Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioner claims that an extent of Ac.0.27 cents of land in Survey No.122/3 was purchased under the registered sale deed, dated 22.01.2003. The petitioner further pleaded that when the owners of the neighbouring lands received notice, dated 07.08.2006, from respondent No.2, requiring them to attend the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act scheduled to be held on 07.08.2006 in connection with acquisition of their lands, she came to know about the proposed acquisition of Ac.0.27 cents of land. She has therefore filed the present writ petition for the above noted relief. The main ground of challenge to the proposed acquisition is that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in two newspapers having circulation in the area in which the land is situated. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is inter alia stated that the notification was published in two newspapers, namely, Helpauri, Telugu Daily, on 04.07.2006 and Indian Express, English Daily, on 05.07.2006. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, wherein it is averred that neither of these two newspapers have circulation in the locality and that even though the petitioner has purchased the property under registered sale deed, her name was not shown in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, thereby depriving her the opportunity of submitting her objections. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court, dated 19.04.2011, in W.P.No.743 of 2008, wherein this Court has dealt with a similar situation. While placing reliance on its earlier order, dated 30.11.2007, in W.P.No.22503 of 2006, this Court upheld the plea of the land owner therein that publication of notification in Janatha daily newspaper cannot be construed as proper publication under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA v. J.Sivaprakasam[1], it was held that the words “newspapers circulating in the locality” if interpreted in a purely literal and normal sense, they would mean newspapers having a regular and study circulation among the general public in the locality irrespective of its number and that in a given case even a newspaper having 2 to 3% market share out of total circulation can be considered as a newspaper circulating in the locality. This Court also took note of the ratio laid down in the said judgment that if there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers or if the two daily newspapers, in which publication was made, have no circulation in the locality, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the essential condition of Section 4(1) of the Act. Applying the above ratio to the present case, the respondents failed to show that the two newspapers, namely, Helapuri and Indian Express, have a regular and study circulation among the general public in the locality and therefore, the acquisition proceedings to the extent of the land admeasuring Ac.0.27 cents belonging to the petitioner suffer from illegality. Accordingly, the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.0.27 cents in Survey No.122/3 of Mudduru Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District, is quashed. This order, however, does not prevent the respondents from initiating fresh proceedings for acquisition of the petitioner’s land in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.23739 of 2006 and W.V.M.P.No.2563 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st June, 2011 Note: LR copies to be marked (b/o) VGB [1] 2010 (12) SCALE 110