JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows: A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) was published in the West Godavari District Gazette on 25-4-1987. In the said notification it was stated that the lands were required for providing house-sites to Schedule Castes and Back-ward Classes. According to the respondents authorities, local publication of the substance of the said notification was made on 27-4-1987. It is not in dispute that the notification was also published in the local newspapers as provided under Section 4 (1) of the act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, on 15-6-1987. The writ petition itself was filed on 22-6-1987. It was stated that the writ petitioners (appellants) are small farmers and that there was no publication of the substance of section 4 (1) notification in the locality either by beat of tom-tom or otherwise. The appellants further averred that the President of the Panchayat had given a letter to the respondents stating that he did not receive the copy of the Gazette publication and that therefore he did not publish the substance of S. 4 (l) notification in the Village either by affixture or by tom tom.

( 3 ) A Counter-affidavit was filed before the learned single Judge stating that the petitioners-appellants are not small farmers as alleged by them, various details of the holdings of the petitioners-appellants were given. It was also stated that the substance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Village on 27-4-1987 and that the mandatory provisions of the Act, including the paper publication, were made scrupulously. It was also stated that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not dispensed with and that the appellants did not avail of the said enquiry,

( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, the only point that appears to have been argued was that the substance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was not published in the locality. The learned Judge held that the said substance was published in the locality within 40 days as prescribed by the A. P. Amendment Act 9 of 1983. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. It was observed that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act may be made after due notice.

( 5 ) AGAINST the said Judgment, this writ appeal has been preferred. In this appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants once again that the substance of Section 4 (1) notification was not published in the locality within 40 days as provided by the A. P. Amendment Act 9 of 1983. The learned counsel also contended that the decision of a Full Bench of this court in Shaik Khannan saheb and others vs. the District Collector: Khammam and others (Writ Petition No. 9776 of 1988 dated 21-8-1990) required reconsideration in so far as it held (hat the above said A. P. Amendment prescribing a limit of 40 days was repugnant to the Central Amendment Act, 1984. The learned counsel contended that on a plain reading of S. 4 (1) of the Act, as amended by the Central Act of 1984, the newspaper publication must come immediately after the Gazette publication and before the local publication of the substance of Section 4 (1) notification. Lastly, it was argued that there was a wide gap, on the facts of the present case, between the gazette publication on 25-4-1987 and the newspaper publication on 15-6-1987 and that on this ground, the acquisition proceedings are to be declared invalid.

( 6 ) SO far as the first submission of the appellants is concerned, it is clear from the record produced by the learned Government Pleader before us that the Sarpanch of the Village has made an endorsement that the substance of Sec. 4 (1) notification was published in the village by affixture as well as tom tom. The said endorsement was attested by various witnesses and it was dat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document