Judgment-

BHAGWATI

( 1 ) THESE appeals by special leave would have perhaps met with a different fate if the Land Acquisition Act, 1894in its application in the State of Andhra Pradesh had not been amended by the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) with retrospective effect from 12/09/1975. The retrospective amendment made by the Amending Act in S. 4 Ss. (1) of the Act completely invalidates the notifications under S. 4 sub-section (1) and S. 6 issued by the Andhra Pradesh government and the Judgment of the High court quashing these notifications has therefore to be sustained. The facts giving rise to these appeals are few and may be briefly stated as follows :

( 2 ) THE government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under S. 4 sub-section (1) staling that a total area of 35 acres and 35 gunthas was likely to be needed for the purpose of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as HUDA ). The notification was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 4/08/1977 and public notice of the substance of the notification was given at convenient places in the locality, after a period of about 2 months, on 3/10/1977. Thereafter an inquiry under S. 5-A of the Act was held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and as a result of the inquiry, the Andhra Pradesh government decided to exclude an area of 6 acres 6 gunthas belonging to one Gayatri Devi Co-operative Housing Society and issued a notification under S. 6 of the Act on 10/01/1979 declaring that the remaining area of land admeasuring 29 acres 29 gunthas was needed for the purpose of HUDA. Notices under S. 9 were then issued to the respondents in these appeals who are the owners of different parcels of land comprised in the area notified under S. 6 and after holding an inquiry, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 27/07/1981 and issued notices to the respondents calling upon them to deliver possession of the land acquired. The respondents thereupon filed writ petition in the High court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of the notifications under S. 4 Ss. (1) and S. 6 issued by the Andhra Pradesh government.

( 3 ) THERE were several contentions raised on behalf of the respondents against the validity of the impugned notifications but, barring one, all were rejected by the High court. The one contention which found favour with the High court was that local publication of the substance of the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) was not made on the same day on which the notification was published in the Official Gazette, but it was made almost 2 months later and the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) was therefore invalid and the notification under S. 4 Ss. (1) being the foundation of the jurisdiction to proceed further with the acquisition, the notification under S. 6 must also fall. The High court, following an earlierfull bench decision rendered by it on 3/12/1982 in Writ Petition 5722 of 1981 and other allied Writ Petition, accepted this contention and quashed the notifications under S. 4 Ss. ( 1 ) and S. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer representing the State thereupon preferred the present appeals with special leave obtained from tins court.

( 4 ) THE principal question which would seem to arise in these appeals is as to whether the High court was right in taking the view that on a true interpretation of S. 4 Ss. (1) public notice of the substance of the notification under that S. must be given in the locality on the same day on which the notification is published in the Official Gazette and if it is not whether that would have an invalidating consequence. There was no decision of the Supreme court on this question at the time when the High court gave its Judgment in the present case, but subsequent to the delivery of the Judgment by the High court, this question came up for consideration before a bench of this court in special leave petitions directed agai