A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is valid and cannot be quashed merely because it contains a direction under section 17 (4) of the Act, which is held to be invalid. The two provisions are severable and the invalidity of the direction under section 17 (4) does not affect the validity of the notification under section 4.

( 1 ) THE question that falls for determination in this writ appeal is whether the notification duly made under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act must be. held as void and liable to be quashed for the mere reason that it embodies at its end the direction of the government issued in exercise of its powers under section 17 (4) to the effect that the provision of section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the case, which direction is no v held to be unwarranted in law as section 17 did not apply at all to the facts of the case.

( 2 ) WE may here extract the notification made under section 4 which reads thus: " Whereas it appears to the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the land specified below is needed for a public purpose, to wit, for the construction of a building for Badruka College of Commerce and Arts, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, notice to that effect is hereby given to all whom the provisions of section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) act XXXVIII of 1923. . . . . and the governor of Andhra Pradesh, hereby authorises the Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, Hyderabad district, his staff and watchmen to exercise the powers conferred by section 4 (2) of the Act. Under sub-section 4 of section 17 of the Act, the Governor of andhra Pradesh, directs that in view of the urgencies of the case the provisions of section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to this case. * * * * * it is manifest that the above notification as published is but an amalgam of a notification under section 4 and a direction under section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition act. Whereas the first two Parts of the notification are concerned with section 4 (1) and (2) respectively, the province of the last part is altogether different for it contains a direction by the Government as contemplated by section 17 (4) that section 5 A which relates to hearing of objections, making inquiry and decision on the objections shall not apply. The question of raising objections and making inquiry cannot arise unless a valid notification has been made under section 4 of the Act. Publication of notification is thus condition precedent for raising objections which have to be necessa ily raised within thirty days from the date of notification. So then the application of section 5-A must only be an aftermath of issuance of notification. The Government may, by its direction in cases coming under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 17, dispense with the requirement of section 5-A under the provisions of section 17 (4 ). The occasion therefore arises only in the event of a valid notification under section 4 being made. It is therefore clear that section 4 notification is neither dependent on nor affected by any irregular or illegal exercise of power under section 17 (4 ). If the direction under section 17 (4) is bad its invalidity cannot therefore affect or invalidate the said notification though it may vitiate the proceedings taken later, i. e. , under section 6 and succeeding sections. In this premises the question is if the direction under section 17 (4) is contained in the same notification as under section 4 though at the end can the whole notification become bad ? The answer must be in the negative. As already noticed the notification under section 4 (1) is contained in the earlier part. The need of acquisition is shown as for public purpose. A notification under section 4 (1) has to issue when the land is likely to be needed for public purpose. No illegality therefore can be attached to such notification. The notification as made under section 4 (1) is thus perfectly valid. Such a notification is complete when it is thus expressed and the land is determinately stated or described. The notification as made in the first part of the publication is in point of fact, complete and stands by itself. Then again the second part of the publication is separate from the first part of publication. It seeks to advance the cause of sub-section (2) of section 4 and the