THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.20146 & 16185 of 2007 Date: 04.02.2008 Between: Inapakolla Atchayyamma & others. … Petitioners (in both the writ petitions) AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary (L.A.), A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents (in both writ petitions) Counsel for the petitioners : Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Officer THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. Nos.20146 & 16185 of 2007 COMMON ORDER:- Since the issue raised in these two writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by a common order. Writ petition No.20146 of 2007 is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification dated 31.05.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and order dated 21.08.2007 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. Writ petition No.16185 of 2007 is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification dated 31.05.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. At the hearing, Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners though raised several contentions, but in the view I am taking, there is no need to go into all those contentions except the two contentions raised by him, namely, i) that the proposed acquisition of agricultural land without conversion for non-agricultural use is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, and ii) non-publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the newspapers having circulation in the area. As regards the first contention, it does not detain the Court for long in view of rejection of a similar contention by this Court by judgment dated 28.12.2007 in Writ Petition No.18881 of 2006 and batch. In view of the same, the first contention is rejected. With regard to the second contention, under Section 4(1) of the Act, notification shall be published in two daily newspapers circulated in the locality in which the lands are situated of which at least one shall be in the regional language. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No.16185 of 2007, it is specifically averred as under: “It is submitted that the Praja Shakti paper is not a locally circulated paper and the said paper is circulated only in Rajahmundry, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam, Tirupati, Khammam, Kurnool, Karimnagar and Srikakulam. The respondents also did not cause public notice as contemplated under the Act.” Learned Assistant Government Pleader, after instructions, fairly stated that the two newspapers, namely, Praja Shakti and pledge have circulation in the head quarters of Peddapudi Mandal, but they have no circulation in the Kaikavolu Village of Peddapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. In my considered view, the word ‘locality’ used in Section 4(1) of the Act shall be construed as the village in which the newspapers are in circulation, otherwise, taking a larger unit as criteria may defeat the very purpose for which publication is envisaged, namely, proper information to the owners of the land. If there is no circulation in the village in which the lands are located, the villagers may not have an opportunity to know that their lands are proposed for acquisition. The provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act are substantive and not merely procedural and any violation of such a substantive provision would render the very notification invalid. Having regard to the admitted fact that the two newspapers in which notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is published do not have circulation in the village in which the ands are located, the entire acquisition proceedings shall be declared as a nullity. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and notification dated 31.05.2007 issued Section 4(1) of the Act and all other subsequent proceedings including order dated 21.08.2007 are set aside. The respondents are, however, left free to initiate fresh proceedings, if they so intend. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.25990, 35927 and 35589 of 2007 and WVMP.No.3036 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2008 ES