IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 2972 of 2008 Between: 1 Valluru Vijayalakshmi W/o Late V. Ramalingeswara Rao, R/o D. No. 7-1-636/24A, Model Colony, near ESI Hospital, Hyderabad. 2 Danda Sujatha W/o D. Buchi Babu, R/o D. No. 7-1-636/24B, Model Colony, near ESI Hospital, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 3 The Sub Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District 4 The Tahsildar, Penamaluru Mandal, Penamaluru, Krishna 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 Notification R.C. G4.5663/2007 dt 3-12-2007 on 7-12-2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration in R.C.B2/4228/2007 dated 6-2-2008 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 2nd respondent herein and the R.C. G4.5663/2007 dt 25-1-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent herein for acquisition of the lands admeasuring Ac. 1.00 and 0.46 belonging to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein situated in S. No. 91/2 (P) of Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (conversion for Non Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006 and contrary to the Circular Memo No. 10054/L.A.I/2005 dt. 22-4-2006 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAJAGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION WRIT PETITION NO : 3097 of 2008 Between: 1 Yerneni Bharathi, W/o Y. Kishore Kumar, D/o D.No.16-11-741/1/B/1, Moosarabagh, Hyderabad-500 036 2 Nayudu Swapna Kumari W/o N.Radha Krishna Murthy, R/o B1101,Sai Sanskar, Adj. Telecom Factory, Sion Trombay Road, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt., of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 3 The Sub Collector,Vijayawada ,Krishna District 4 The Tahsildar, Penamaluru ,Krishna 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 Notification R.C. G4.5663/2007 dt.3.12.2007 published on 7.12.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act and the Declaration in R.C.B2/4228/2007 dated 6.2.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 2nd respondent herein and the R.C. G4/5663/2007 Dt.25.1.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent herein for acquisition of the lands admeasuring Ac.1.18 and 0.54 belonging to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein situated in S.No 91/2(p) of Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna district as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 300-A of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and contrary to the A.P., Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural purposes) Act, 2006 and contrary to the Circular Memo No. 10054/L.A.1/2005 dt. 22.4.2006 issued by the Govt., of A.P., and pass such further order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.RAJAGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION Nos. 2972 of 2008 AND 3097 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: As the point involved in these two writ petitions is one and same, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. According to the petitioners, at the time of their marriage, the lands were given to them by their parents by way of pasupukumkuma under registered gift deeds and ever since they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the Government has come up with a proposal to provide house sites to the weaker sections and in that context, the government proposed to acquire an extent of Ac.5.48 cents and accordingly, a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act( for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) was published on 07-12-2007. As the enquiry contemplated under Sec.5-A of the Act was directed to be held by the Revenue Divisional Officer, he conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Collector, pursuant to which, the Collector passed an order under Sec.5-A of the Act on 25-01-2008 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, a draft declaration as provided under Sec.6 of the Act was published on 06-02-2008. At this juncture, the petitioners approached this court by filing the present two writ petitions. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are small farmers and though Government lands are very much available and the memo issued by the Government on 22-04-2006 clearly indicates that only the Government land shall be proposed for acquisition and 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. 4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. 5. It may not be necessary for this Court to go into various contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. 6. 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,…….” 7. 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. May be 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 newspapers. 8. 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 03-12-2007 and the declaration dated 06-02-2008 are hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dt: 17-04-2008 Rns. To 1. The Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam 3. The Sub Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District 4. The Tahsildar, Penamaluru Mandal, Penamaluru, Krishna District. 5. Two CD copies