IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was valid as the District Collector, acting within the authority delegated by the State Government, had issued the notification. However, the part of the notification requiring the petitioners to submit objections within fifteen days was quashed for contravening the mandatory provision of Section 5-A(1) of the Act.

COMMON ORDER

Alok Aradhe, CJ. - Mr. C.Hanumantha Rao and Mr. S.Sudeep Reddy, learned counsels for the petitioners in W.P.No. 14061 of 2005.

Mr. M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.23945, 24608 and 27505 of 2005.

Mr. M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.33376, 38695 of 2013 and also representing Mr. Aravala Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.22798, 22803, 23787, 24373, 24390, 24400 and 24408 of 2015.

Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. V.Rohith, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8291 of 2023.

Mr. Mohd. Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

2. In this bunch of writ petitions, singular issue with regard to validity of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') arises for consideration. Therefore, the instant writ petitions were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of one of the writ petitions, namely W.P.No.33376 of 2013, in a nutshell are that the petitioners claim to be the owners of different extents of land situated in various survey numbers of Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) submitted a requisition on 08.11.2004 for acquisition of land measuring Acs.50.02 guntas situated Survey Nos. 158, 159, 160, 161, 162 and 163 of Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land'), for the purpose of establishment of IT Park and related projects.

4. Thereupon, a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the subject land was submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on 23.02.2005. The same was approved by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on 04.03.2005 and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 06.03.2005 and in Telugu and English Daily Newspapers on 10.03.2005. The names of the pattadars in respect of the subject land were published as per the entries in the revenue records of the Gopanpally Village.

5. After publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, notices in Form III of Section 5(A) of the Act were issued to the pattadars/owners on 20.03.2005 for filing claims and objections, if any, to the proposed land acquisition on or before 04.04.2005. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was envisaged to be conducted on 06.04.2005.

6. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 26.10.2005 dismissed the writ petitions. The orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court were assailed in various civil appeals before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by an order dated 04.03.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1781 of 2008 (N.Lakshmi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh), remitted the matters to this Court for a fresh decision. The order reads as under:

ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In all these appeals, it is not in dispute by and between the parties that the Divisional Bench of the High Court relying on earlier orders passed in other matters dismissed all these matters and the said orders have been challenged by the appellants herein. It was stated that even counter affidavits had not been filed in these matters. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellants appearing in these matters that several other questions were also raised which were not the subject matter of earlier group and were not agitated in those matters and were not answered one way or the other by the Court raised in these matters. In all these matters, in our opinion, the abovesaid fact also is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in