1. Careless printing of a notification issued under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part-I Extraordinary bearingNo.359 dated 10th July, 1984, has given rise to a controversy arising for consideration in this Writ Petition. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to restrain the 1st respondent herein from enforcing the notices in Form No.6 and 7 dated 26-7-84 and Form No.10 dated 10-9-1984 as illegal, void and inoperative. According to the petitioner, the lands notified for acquisition under S. 6 of the L.A. Act published in the A.p.Gazette bearing No.359 dated 10th July , 1984 are not lands belonging to him. It may be relevant to notice a few facts, initially notifications under Section 4(1) and Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dt. 25-6-1982 were published together in the A.P. Gazette Extraordinary dt. 13-7-1982 proposing to acquire a portion of the land belonging to the petitioner in S. Nos. 341 and 343 admeasuring Ac.0.14 guntas. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the L.A.Act was dispensed with. The above acquisition was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No.1114 of 1983 on several grounds. The Government proposed to acquire a large extent of land belonging to several persons for the purposes of construction of a railway line from Tellapur to Patanchery. The acquisition was also questioned by the owners of the land in Writ Petition No.6802 of 1983. This court disposed of the writ petition bearing No.6802 of 1983 as well as the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing no.1114 of 1983 by a common judgment dated 31-1-1984. It is sufficient to state that the learned single Judge disposing of the above writ petition upheld the acquisition of the Ac.0.14 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner in S. Nos. 341 and 343. Against the order of the leaned single Judge, the petitioner preferred an appeal in writ appeal no.278 of 1984. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by a Division Bench on the ground that the question of invoking either sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the L.A.Act in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner did not arise, as the land was neither waste land nor arable land. In that view this court quashed the notification under Section 6 of the L.A.Act and directed the Special Deputy Collector, Sangareddy to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the L.A.Act into the proposed acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner notified under S. 4(1).
2. Pursuant to the above directions of this court, necessary enquiry under S. 5-A of the L.A.Act was conducted. The petitioner stated his objections to the proposed acquisition. Eventually , notification dt.23-6-1984 was issued under S. 6 of the L.A.Act, which was published in the A.P.Gazette Part.I Extraordinary dated 10th July, 1984. It is shre validity of this notification under Section 6 of the L.A.Act that the petitioner challenges in the present writ petition. The notification bearing Memo No.2387/82-37 dt 23-6-1984 published in the A.P.Gazette stated that the land admeasuring Ac.0-14 guntas, of which details were given in the notification, acquired for the purpose of laying of new broad guage railway line from Tellapur to Patancheru and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, is appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under the L.A.Act and directed to take order for the acquisition of the said land under sub-section (7) of S. 17 of the L.A.Act. The details of the land specified in the notification filed by the petitioner are given below:-
'District - Medak Taluk - Sangareddy Village - Ramachandrapuram, DryPatta S.No.431 belonging to -Industrial Development (APIIC) and PratapSteel Rolling Mills (Pvt) Limited, P. Cheruvu 0-13 acresDry Patta S.No.433 belonging to - Industrial Development (APIIC) and PratapSteel Rolling Mills Limited, Patancheruvu 0-11 acresTotal 0-14 acres--------------
The petitioner contends that the land, of which the above details were given in the notification under S. 6, does not belong to it. It is claimed that the petitioner is not the owner of the land of the extent of Ac.0-13 guntas in S.No.431 nor is it the owner of the land of the extent of Ac.0-11 guntas in S.No.433 as specified in the notification. The petitioner also points out that the aggregate of the two items of the land could not be Ac.0-14 guntas. There is either an error in the sum total of the two items or the extent of land was wrongly specified against the survey members. In any event, the petitioner not being the owner of the land specified in the notification under Section 6 published in the A.P.Gazette as aforesaid, the proceedings subsequently taken by the Ist respondent by the issuance of Form Nos. 6,7 and 10 for taking possession of the lands of the petitioner were illegal, void and inoperative. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.R.Ramachandra Rao, contends that the notification under S. 6 published in A.P.Gazette does not refer to the Lands belonging to the petitioner and if there were any errorts or misdescription of the lands as specified in the notification under S. 6, the entire notification is vitiated by reason of such impugned notification dt.23.6.1964 under S. 6 of the L.A.Act as well as the proceedings subsequently taken by the Ist respondent for taking possession of the land shoul dbe struck down. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly stated that the petitioner is not raising the plea to quash the notification under S. 6 on account of mere technically, but that the public at large should know whose land is acquired and to what extent and, acting under an erroneous notification under S. 6 specifying the details of the lands belonging to others, the petitioner's land cannot be acquired and much less possession can be taken. It must be stated that the propositions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the form that he did are unexceptionable. If the notification published in the A.P.Gazette under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act does not specify the acquisition of the lands belonging to the petitioner, surely prodeedings cannot be invoked by the Ist respondent, for taking possessionof the lands belonging to the petitioer in some other survey numbers and a different extent. The matter however does not end simply at that.
3. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Railways who took notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent at the time when the writ petition came up for admission, wanted a day's time to check up as to how errors crept in the notification. He was granted time accoordingly and he produced before the court another copy of the original gazette Part-I Extraordinary bearing No.359 dt 10-7-1984, TheNotification under S. 6 dated 10-7-1984 publihed in this Gazette specified the following particulars of the land acquired:-
'District - Medak Taluk - Sangareddy Village - Ramachandrapuram, DryPatta S.No.341 belonging to Industrial Development (APIIC) and PratapSteel Rolling Mills (Pvt) Limited, P. Cheruvu 0-13 acresDry Patta S.No.343 belonging to Industrial Development (APIIC) and PratapSteel Rolling Mills Limited, Patancheruvu 0-01 acresTotal 0-14 acres--------------
It is not in dispute ha the survey numbers, description and the extent of land were correctly specified in this Gazette. Learned Standing counsel submits that it is this notification that has been forwarded to the Ist Respondent for taking the necessary follow up action and the notification was correctly printedin the Gazette. Learned Standing counsel is unable to guess as to how the partuclars were wrongly printed in the notification filed by the petitioner, which is also original. Thus, this court is confronted with two notifications one specifying the particulars correctly, which is produced by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Railways, and another specifying particulars incorrectly which is filed by the petitioner. It is not difficult to guess that, in a few copies of the notification printed by the Government press, errors crept in. It is interestingto note that, in copy of the notification filed by the petitioner, the survey number is shown as 431, whereas the correct survey number is 341. The survey number is jumbled up. But for this mistake, the particulars against this item were correctly specified. Coming to the second item in the notification filed by the petitioner, the S.Nos. is shown as 433. Wheras the correct S.No. is 343. Herein again, the survey number is jumbled up. Against the extent of land Ac.0-11 guntas was specified in the notification filed by the petitioner, whereas the correct extent of land is only Ac.0-01 guntas. There is again a printing error here. The total of the two items is correctly specified as Ac.0-14 guntas in both the notifications. On these facts, I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Railways that the mistake in printing a few copies ofteh Gazette does not vitiate the validity of the notification taking into consideration the fact that, in several other copies of the Gazette printed by the Government press, the particulars were correctly specified. The learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Railways produced before me the connected record to fortify his submission that the declaration approved for publication in the local press contained correct particulars. The learned Standing counsel also drew my attention to the letter dated 25-7-1984 bearing No.C4/4978/83 of the Collector, Medak District, forwarding to the 1st respondent five copies of the A.p.Gazette No.359 dt.10-7-1984 and according to these copies forwarded the particulars were correctly specified. It is stated that the 1st Respondent had initiated necessary stept taking possession of the land pursuant to the notification forwarded to him on 25-7-1984 where in the particulars were correctly specified.
4. On the aforesaid facts, I am satisfied that the printing errors in some copies of the Gazette pointed out by the petitioner do not vitiate the validity of the notification dated 23-6-1984 under S. 6 of the L.A.Act inasmuch as the same A.P.Gazette published the notifications specifying correct particulars in a large number of other copies. The validity of the notification under S. 6 of the L.A.Act on the basis of the above errors is, in my opinion, not open to question. The petitionr could nto conceivably entertain any misapprehension and there could also be no mistake in the public mine about the real items of land acquired as are correctly specified in the notification produced by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Railways, which was also the notification forwarded by the Collector to the 1st Respondent for appropriate action.
5. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Railways has also placed before me a photostt copyof panchanama testifying the fact that Ac.0-13 guntas of land in S.No.341 and Ac.0-01 gunta of land in S.343 were taken possession on 21-9-1984. The panchanama produced before me contains the signatures of the panchas in whose presence possession was taken, it does not of course, contain the signature of any of the representatives of the petitionr, but it is explained that, on the reluctance of the petitioner to deliver possession of the land pursuant to the notification possession was taken by the authorities as testified by the panchas, who signed the panchanama. Learned counsel for the petitoner vehemently denies possession having beeen taken. It is not necessary for me to go into this dispute, as the challenge is confined to the validity of the notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and to the subsequent processing taken for possession. All that can be said is that the 1st Respondent was justified invoking the necessary follow up steps for taking possession of the land pursuant to the notification dt.23-6-1984 issued under Sec.6 of the L.A.Act.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to accede to the request of the petitioner for admitting this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.
7. Petition dismissed.