IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 6054 of 2008 Between: Velagapudi Venkateswara Rao S/o. Subbarao R/o. D.No.9-99, Ashok Nagar, New Check Post, Kanuru, Vijayawada- 7. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna Dist., Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the notification in RC.G4.5663/2007 dated 03.12.2007 published on 07.12.2007 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the Declaration in R.C.No.B2/4228/2007 dated 06.02.2008 issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the 1st respondent and the proceedings in RC.G4.5663/2007 dated 25.01.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and the Proceedings of the 2nd respondents in RC.B2/3188/2007 dtd. 13.02.2008 for acquisitilon of the land measuring Ac.2.30 cents belonging to the petitioner in R.S.No.108/2 of Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, Arbitrary, unreasonable and against the principals of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to follow the due process of law by giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and grant such other relief Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.L.NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} O R D E R :- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the Notification dated 3.12.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) and the Declaration dated 6.2.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Act and the proceedings dated 25.1.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and the proceedings dated 13.2.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent for acquisition of the petitioner’s land, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that he is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.2.45 cents of land in R.S.No.108/1 situated in part of Yenamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District and it is an ancestral property. While so, the 1st respondent-District Collector issued the Notification dated 3.12.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the petitioner’s land for the purpose of allotting house-sites to the weaker sections. Then, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 18.12.2007 requesting the 1st respondent to afford him an opportunity to put forth his version. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents, without considering his objections nor affording any opportunity of personal hearing, are trying to dispossess him from the land in question. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a small farmer and though the Government lands are very much available and the Memo issued by the Government on 22-04-2006 which clearly indicates that if no Government land is available, then only, the lands belonging to the private individuals shall be acquired for providing house sites or houses to the weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted the enquiry as well as the Collector, who passed the order under Sec.5-A, without looking into the said aspect, rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. Further, according to the learned counsel, though Sec.4(1) mandates that the notification shall be published in the Gazette and thereafter in two newspapers, one in the vernacular language, the said notification was published in two English newspapers, i.e. Pledge and Deccan Chronicle. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into various contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the very notification is bad for the reason that Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. It may be apt to extract the said provision of law. “Sec.4: Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon:- (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government (for the District Collector), that land in any locality (is needed or) is likely to be needed for any public purpose (or for a company) a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette or (The District Gazette) (and in two daily newspapers circulated in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and (the Collector shall, within forty days from the date of publication of such notification cause) public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient place in the said locality, the last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. 2. Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorized by such Government (or the District Collector) in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,…….” Originally, in Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the provision for publication of notification was not in existence. Subsequently, the Legislature thought it fit to direct the authorities to issue the said notification in two daily newspapers and in that context, an amendment was introduced in A.P. Amendment Act, XXII of 1976, which came into force with effect from 12-09-1975. The very intention of the Legislature in amending the said Act and directing the Land Acquisition Officer to publish the notification in two daily newspapers circulated in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language is to enable the people to know that there is a proposal to acquire their lands. The further intention of the Legislature in directing the Land Acquisition Officer to see that such notification is published in the regional language is keeping in mind that most of the people in the State of A.P. are illiterate and they are not conversant with English language. Maybe, it is true as contended by the learned Government Pleader that the said notification is published in Telugu only, but the same is published in the English newspaper. Having considered the submissions made by both the counsel, in my considered opinion, the people who are not conversant with the language of English will not subscribe and read or look at the English newspapers. So, even if it is published in Telugu language in an English newspaper, the very purpose of the said amendment is defeated. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the said notification is bad in law. Accordingly, the said notification dated 3-12-2007 and the Declaration dated 6-02-2008 are hereby quashed. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dt: 24-04-2008 bcj.