The publication of the substance of the notification in the locality is mandatory and it has to be done simultaneously, if possible but in any case, at least immediately after the publication of the notification in the Gazette.

MADHAVA REDDY, A. C. J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment of our learned brother gangadhara Rao, J. , allowing writ petition No. 5524 of 1978 in part.

( 2 ) THE land acquisition officer, Nellore published a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act in the Gazette on 7-10-1978 notifying the acquisition of an extent of Ac. 1-06 cents of lands in survey No. 314/1 an 315/b1 of Reddigunta village hamlet of yellayapalem village belonging to the petitioners. The substances of the said notification was published in the locality on 17-11-1978. This land was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to scheduled tribes and economically backward classes and for that purpose invoking the powers under S. 17 (4) the enquiry under sec. 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. However in view of the guidelines issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh in their Memorandum No. 1952/g. 76-4 Revenue (G) Department dated 24-7-1976 advising the land acquisition officer to defer even after the Notification under S. 4 (1) or S. 6 of the Act, Acquisition of lands from surplus holders until the proceedings under the Andhra pradesh land reforms (ceiling on agricultural Holdings) Act are finalised, possession of the land in question was not taken. The petitioner had filed declaration under the land reforms (ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act and the same was pending enquiry and disposed when the above notification was published. The petitioner therefore called in question the proposed acquisition.

( 3 ) IT is their case that the notification under S. 4 (1) was not published in the locality and he came to know of the proposed acquisition only when notice under S. 9 (3) and 10 of the land Acquisition Act dated 14-11-1978 was served on them on 4-12-1978 calling upon him to file written statements regarding their interest in the land and the amount of compensation claimed by them. It is their further case that in the declaration C. C. No. 1317/75 KVR filed by them some land was declared as surplus and the matter was pending in a c. R. P. No. 6051/7 before the High Court. Even while the C. R. P. was pending as per the determination of the appellate Tribunal, the surplus holding of Acs. 55-00 of dry land was surrendered to the Government and the Government took possession of the same. They submit that that land is available for assignment. They challenged the acquisition of the land primarily on two grounds; firstly that there was a delay of forty days in publishing the notification in the locality and that it vitiated the entire acquisition proceedings and secondly that the dispensing with of the enquiry contemplated under sec. 5-A of the Act was invalid as there was no urgency warranting such action. Our learned brother gangadhara Rao, J. , while observing that the first point was not specifically taken in the affidavit, held that even if there was not fatal to the acquisition proceedings. The second contention however found favour with him and he held that the very fact that possession was not taken even up to the date of the judgment was proof positive of lack of urgency warranting dispensing with of enquiry under s. 5-A of the Act. In that view of the matter, while upholding the Notification under S. 4 (1), he quashed the proceedings dispensing with the enquiry under S. 5-A and directed the Authorities concerned to make an enquiry under S. 5-A before proceeding further with the acquisition of that land.

( 4 ) INITIALLY only the writ petitioners had filed writ appeal No. 744 of 1981. At the hearing of that appeal the Government pleader stated that inasmuch as the learned single judge had held against the land acquisition Authorities in so far as they dispensed with the enquiry under section 5-A the Government was also preferring an appeal. Accordingly writ appeal No. 809 of 1981 was filed and both the appeals were heard together by us.

( 5 ) BEFORE determining the question arisi