(1) THESE appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order of the division bench of the High court of A. P., dated 8/8/1985, made in Writ Appeals Nos. 302-03 of 1985. A notification under Section 4(1 of the Land Acquisition Act was initially published on 15/4/1983. The same was subsequently withdrawn and fresh notification was published on 9/6/1983. The respondents challenged the validity of the notification in two writ petitions. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 1/2/1985 quashed the notification on the ground of colourable exercise of power by the authorities. On appeal before the division bench, one of the learned Judges upheld the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground of non-application of mind by the Collector himself, since the acquisition was made by the Collector on the recommendation made by the government. The second ground was that the administrative instructions for obtaining prior permission from the government for making the award when the value exceeds Rs. 20,000.00 per acre were not obtained. Another learned Judge has affirmed the order on the ground that the prior permission of the government was not obtained for making the award. Thus these appeals by special leave.

(2) SHRI G. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the notification validly issued by the Collector who is the competent authority to issue notification under Section 4(1 of the Act, cannot be whittled down by the non-consideration of the administrative instructions issued by the government nor absence of prior approval is a ground to declare the valid notification as an invalid one. Shri R.N. Keshwani, learned counsel tor the respondents, strenuously contended that attempts were made by the Sarpanch to get the property in Survey No. 25/10 by successive litigations. There was no proposal tor acquiring the land for the weaker sections. The Collector in a cryptic order has mentioned that the land could be acquired for weaker S. without any proposal for acquiring the land for weaker sections. Exercise of power under Section 4(1 is a colourable exercise of power vested in the Collector. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly has gone into that question. Accordingly, he made valiant efforts to convince us to agree with the learned Single Judge on the colourable exercise of power and to uphold the order quashing the notification under Section 4(1 of the Act.

(3) HAVING given careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the argument of Shri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant is acceptable. It is seen that admittedly the notification under Section 4(1 was published by the Collector for acquiring the land for the weaker sections. The Collector had been empowered to acquire the land for the weaker sections. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is true that initially there was an attempt by the Sarpanch to have the land acquired for Housing Cooperative Society. Since the members of the Cooperative Society belonged to the forward S. of society, the land could not be acquired. The Collector also did not accede to that request. The Tahsildar suggested to acquire some other land but that was not accepted by the Joint Collector. The file had gone to the Collector and ultimately the government had accepted the proposal to acquire the land in question for the weaker sections. It may be true that some of the persons to whom the allotment was to be made belonged to the forward S. of society but that does not take away the initial exercise of the power by the Collector. As stated earlier, the Collector is the competent authority to exercise power under Section 4(1 of the Act. The notification does indicate that the land was acquired for public purpose, namely, providing houses to the weaker S. of society. Even the recommendations made by the government after the protracted litigation were for acquiring the land for weaker sections. Thus the acquisition being only for th