B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE main contention urged in this writ petition is that, the notification under S. 4 (1), Land Acquisition Act not having been published in two daily newspapers, as required by the Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the notification itself fails and must be quashed.

( 2 ) BY the Central Amendment Act, the following words are added to sub-s. (1) of S. 4 after the words"shall be published in the Official Gazette" and before the words "and the Collector shall cause public notice" : - "and in two daily newspapers circulated in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language. "

( 3 ) THE notification impugned herein was published in the District Gazette on 7-11-1984 and till the matter was heard in the month of March, 1985, it is admitted, the notification was not published in two daily newspapers. The contention of the learned Government Pleader, however, is that the said requirement is not mandatory, but is only directory and, therefore, the non-compliance therewith does not render the notification void. I am not prepared to agree. Before this amendment, S. 4 (1) required the notification to be published in two modes, viz. one, in the Official Gazette, and the second, publication in the locality of the substance of the notification (which shall be referred to, for the sake of convenience hereinafter, as local publication ). The local publication has been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court, and the non-compliance therewith has been held to vitiate the very notification. The reasons for which the local publication has been held to be mandatory must equally apply to the additional requirement of publication in two daily newspapers. The idea behind the local publication, as well as the publication in two daily newspapers, is that several persons who may be interested in the land proposed to be acquired but whose names may not be found in the Official Gazette, may become aware of the proposal. Moreover, though the publication in the Official Gazette is statutorily deemed as a public notice, the law recognized that, in practice, it is not a sufficient notice. It, therefore, provided an additional mode of publication, viz. the local publication. Now, the. Parliament seems to feel that, even that is not sufficient, and has provided an additional requirement of publication in two daily newspapers circulated in the locality, of which at least one should be in the regional language. Having regard to the fact that the notification proposes to compulsorily acquire the land of a person, and also because all the persons interested should be put on notice of such proposal, I am of the opinion that the said requirement is mandatory.

( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader then contended that the said Central amendment of S. 4 (1) does not apply to the State of Andhra Pradesh because of the words introduced in S. 4 (1) by the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 9 of 1983. By the said amendment, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature provided that the local publication should be effected within 40 days of the publication of the notification in the Gazette. This amendment was brought forward to supersede a Full Bench judgment of this Court, which held that the publication in the Gazette and the publication in the locality should take place simultaneously. But, I am unable to see any inconsistency or repugnancy in the State amendment and the Central amendment. Both can co-exist, and both have to be complied with. It must also be noticed that the Central amendment is subsequent in point of time to the State amendment. The learned Government Pleader cited certain decisions in support of his contention, viz. Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 752; Tika Ramji v. State of U. P. AIR 1956 SC 676 and M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 898, but, I think it unnecessary to deal with the said decisions, because I see absolutely no repugnancy whatsoever between the State amendment and the C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document