A gap between the dates of publication of the 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings in the absence of mala fides or prejudice caused to the affected party.

Shivaraj Patil, J.

1. The appellant herein has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 14. 1990 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 13487 of 1986.

.2. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal, are the following:-

.The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 13487 of 1986 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the land acquisition proceedings taken up in pursuance of the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No.1458, dated 17. 1985 and the declaration made under Section 6 in G.O.Ms. No.2903 dated 11. 1986 in respect of his land in Survey No.481/1, Alapalayam village, Avanashi Taluk, Coimbatore District, measuring 1.93 acres. The appellant, pleaded that he is the owner of the said dry land; he has 1/3 share in other Survey Nos. viz., 301, 453, 455/3, 477 and 478. There is a 50east-west mud road dividing the properties in Survey Nos.477 and 478 on the northern side on the one hand, and Survey Nos.301, 453, 455/3 and 481 on the south of the road. The said road is the only access to the appellants lands.

3. The appellant in the writ petition contended that there was no proper publication of the 4 (1) Notification simultaneously by three modes as contemplated; the objections filed by the appellant were not properly considered. In the writ petition some more contentions are raised.

4. The learned single Judge, after considering the respective contentions, passed the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition. Hence the writ appeal is filed.

5. Before us the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is a long gap between the date of publication of the Notification in the locality and other publications under Section 4 (1) of the Act which itself vitiated the acquisition proceedings; the objections filed by the appellant could be rejected only by the Government and not by the Land Acquisition Officer; and that alternative land is available and it was offered by the appellant but the authorities, without properly considering this aspect, have simply refused to accept the alternative land offered as not suitable.

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the respondents, supported the impugned order passed by the 1 learned single Judge in his arguments.

.7. Both the learned counsel for the parties have cited few decisions in support of their

.respective contentions.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act issued in G.O.Ms. No.1458 dated 17. 1985 was published in the official gazette on 37. 1985, in newspapers on 18. 1985, and the substance of it was published in the locality on 111. 1985.

10. The appellant filed objections on 211. 1985 for the proposed acquisition. Enquiry under Section 5A was conducted on 1. 1986; objections were overruled on 11. 1986; thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in G.O.Ms. No.2903/S.W.D. dated 1. 1986 which was published in the Gazette on 11. 1986 and published in the newspaper and in the locality on 111. 1986 and 111. 1986. After notice, award was passed under Section 11 of the Act on 26. 1989. The appellant was informed about the Award proceedings on 8. 1989 itself.

.11. Learned single Judge, having perused the land acquisition file produced by the respondent, in the order under challenge, has stated thus:-

."...It is seen that the Collector has only made his remarks as against each of the objections as to why the said objection cannot be accepted and the reasonings for not accepting the objections alone were communicated while he forwarded the remarks and the objections and the necessary proposals to the Government and it is only the Government in G.O.Ms. No.2903, Social Welfare Department dated 11. 1986 accepted the recommendation of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and overruled the objections raised by the land-owners a