IMPORTANT POINT
The view of the Full Bench of the High Court that simultaneous publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act in the Gazette and local publication of its substance was mandatory was wrong in allowing the writ appeal the same is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition stands restored.

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made in Writ Appeal No. 692 of 1982 on March 2, 1983. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) (for short, "the Act") acquiring the lands in question to provide house sites to Class IV employees of the appellant-Society, was published in the State Gazette on January 11, 1979. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on March 17, 1979. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) submitted his report to the Government on June 19, 1979. Declaration under Section 6 was published on March 29, 1980. The LAO after conducting enquiry made his award under Section 11 on December 13, 1980 and notice thereof was served on the respondents. It is stated that since the respondent did not attend the office of the LAO, as directed, on January 1, 1981, the compensation was deposited in the court of the Subordinate Judge. It is stated that after LAO had taken possession of the land from the respondents, he had handed over the land to the appellant but actual date was not mentioned. It is also stated by the appellants that thereafter plots were laid out and were alloted to its members and some members had started construction of their houses. At that stage, the respondents had filed the writ petition on August 9, 1982 and the Full Bench following its judgment in Vadaiah & Ors. v. Govt. of A.P.1, quashed the notification and the declaration holding that the notifications under Section 4(1) were not simultaneously published in the Gazette and in the locality. Thus this appeal by special leave.

2. Shri C. Sitaramaiah, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor2, this Court had overruled the Full Bench decision in Yadaiah s case and approved of the ratio in various Division Bench judgments of that Court referred therein. The State legislature amended the Act by Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 (Act 9 of 1983) (for short, "the Act") giving retrospective effect, viz., w.e.f. September 12, 1975, the date on which the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976 had come into force. Though the Validation Act retrospectively prescribes publication of the substance of the Section 4(1) notification within 40 days from the date of its publication in the District Gazette, the publication of the substance even after 40 days does not become invalid by the ratio in Deepak Pahwa s case and by operation of clause (b) of Section 4 of the Validation Act. He also contended that since possession had already been taken, after the award was made, the land stood vested in the State and the beneficiaries, free from all encumbrances. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its quashing Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration. It is also contended that the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984) provides procedure for publication of the notification in the Gazette, newspapers and the local publication and limitation for publication of the declaration under Section 6 within one year from last of the dates of the publication under Section 4(1) which would indicate that various publications under Section 4(1) could be done at periodical intervals without time limit within the maximum period of one year. The Validation Act thereafter also does not hold the field.

3. ShriA. Sabbarao, learned counsel for the respondents contended that after the Validation Act was given retrospective effect from September 12,1975 and local publication made after 40 days, the notification under Section 4(1) became invalid; consequently, the declaration under Section 6 is non est. He placed reliance on Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad A.P. v. Mohd. Amri Khan & Ors. and C.K. Narayana Chary & Ors. v. Pothepalli Ashanna & Ors.4, the ratio wher