( 1 ) THE petitioners are challenging the validity of a notification issued under section 4 (I) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, as amended by the Andhra pradesh (Amendment) Act, (No. 22) of 1976, on the following grounds, viz. , (i) that, the notification under section 4 (1) was not published in thegazette; (ii) that the substance of the notification was not published in the village, as required by law; and (iii) that, the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act no. 22 of 1976 is unconstitutional and invalid. We may dispose of the first and the third objections in the first instance,

( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit it is stated that the notification under section 4 (1) has been published in ths Krishna District Gazette, dated 14-4-1979. A copy of the Gazette, found ia the record, has also been placed before us. The first contention, therefore, fails.

( 3 ) SO far as the third contention is concerned, a Full Bench of this court has upheld the constitutionality of the Amendment Act, except in so far as it provides for payment of compensation in instalments in case of acquisition of agricultural lands below the ceiling limit. The third contention also, accordingly, fails.

( 4 ) THE main question canvassed before us pertain to the second contention raised by the petitioners. It is contended by Sri A. Panduranga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in fact there was no publication in the locality and that, the endorsement of the Executive Officer of the gram Panchayat, now produced before the Court, is a subsequent fabrication. Learned counsel contended alternatively that, even if the said endorsement is accepted as true, even then the notification under section 4 (1) should fail, inasmuch as the local publication has been effected roughly after an interval of two months from the date of publication of the notification in the gazette. This interval is said to be unreasonably long. Certain decisions of the Supreme Court are relied upon in support of this proposition.

( 5 ) THE record produced before us by the Government clearly contains an endorsement of the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat, dated 10-6-1979, on the copy of the Gazette itself, that it s contents have been published in the village and that, a copy thereof was also pasted on the notice-Board of the Gram Panchayat. The stamp of the Executive Officer is also found below the signature. The petitioners have not produced before us any material whatsoever to doubt or disbelieve the said endorsement. In fact, the petitioners came forward with an allegation that there was no local publication at all. It was never their case that though there was no such publication, an endorsement was obtained subsequently from the Executive officer. We must, therefore, hold that the publication has been effected in the locality, as required by section 4 (I) of the Act.

( 6 ) IT is then argued that the interval of about two months between the date of publication in the Gazette and the date on which the local publication took place, is unreasonably long. Rule 1 of the Rules framed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, under section 55 of the Act, is relied upon to contend that the local publication should take place immediately after the publication of the notification in the Gazette. Rule 1 reads as follows :"1. Immediately after the publication of the notification under section 4 (1), the Collector shall issue a notice stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed, as the case may be, for a public purpose and requiring all persons interested in the land to lodge before the Collector within 30 days after the issue of toe notification a statement in writing of their objections, if any to the proposed acquisition. This notice should be published at convenient places in the said locality, and copies thereof fixed up in the office of the Collector, the Tahsildar, and in the nearest police station". (emphasis is ours.)

( 7 ) THE argument of Mr. Panduranga Rao i