V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land comprised in S.No. 436-1 admeasuring Acs.4-46 cents situated in Hindupur village. The 1st respondent issued notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’ for brevity) proposing to acquire land for a public purpose for establishment of Autonagar in Hindupur. A copy of the notification was published in the local newspapers on 7.11.2001. Thereafter, a declaration was published under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act on 30.3.2002. These two notifications are assailed in this Writ Petition.
2. It is contended that the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act by the District Collector are without jurisdiction. Secondly, it is urged that the declaration was made as if the land is being acquired for the purpose of establishment of Autonagar at Hindupur whereas the notification published in the newspapers under Section 4(1) shows that the land is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed along with the vacate stay application, it is stated that the notification issued under Section 4(1) was for acquiring land for establishment of Autonagar. However, the newspapers committed a mistake in publishing the same by showing that the land is being acquired for providing house sites. However, it is sought to be justified on the ground that the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act was correctly issued proposing to acquire the land for establishment of Autonagar and, therefore, the notifications are not vitiated by any illegality.
4. Whenever the land is required for public purpose, the Government has to issue a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and publish it in the official gazette to the effect that such land is needed for such public purpose. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, as published in the official gazette, shall have to be necessarily published in two daily newspapers circulated in the locality, one of which at least shall be in the regional language. The third step is publication of substance of the notification, at a convenient place in the locality where the land is situated, under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Government or the other competent authority has to publish a declaration after publishing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the locality. However, no declaration under Section 6(1) can be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act subject, however, to the condition that if the notification under Section 4(1) is stayed by the Court, the period during which the stay operates shall be excluded.
5. As seen from the above, in this case, there is no valid publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in two daily newspapers circulated in the locality. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the official gazette on 15.10.2001 (copy of which is produced before this Court) and the notification published in the newspapers on 7.11.2001 are different. The public purpose for which the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published is different from the public purpose published in the local newspapers. Though the 30.3.2002, the same must be held to be not in accordance with law as the same is published without there being a valid publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, the only recourse available to the respondents is to publish the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in two local newspapers correctly and then issue the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. However, having regard to the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, that is also not possible for the respondents because no publication under Section 6(1) can be made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Section 4(1) notification was published on 15.10.2001 and there being no valid compliance with Section 4(1) by publishing in two daily local newspapers, the respondents cannot now issue a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the entire proceedings lapsed.
6. Insofar as the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Collector is not competent to consider, the same is devoid of any merits. Be it noted that under Section 3-A of the Act, as amended by the A.P. Amendment Act, 22 of 1976, the State Government is competent to delegate any power conferred or any duty imposed on them to the District Collector. Further, under Section 3-C, the expression ‘Collector’ means the Collector of a District, Deputy Commissioner or any Officer specifically appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act.
7. This Court, in Writ Petition No. 27731 of 1995 dated 8.7.2003, considered a similar issue wherein it was held that the District Collectors are authorized to exercise powers vested in the State Government under Sections 5-A and 17(4) of the Act and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:
“In exercise of their powers under Section 3-A of the Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 1378, dated 15.10.1975 authorising the District Collectors to exercise powers vested in the State Government under Section 5A of the Act and Section 17(4) of the Act for the purpose of acquisition of land for construction of any dwelling houses for the poor. By G.O. Ms. No. 96, dated 20.1.1976 the Government, in exercise of their powers under Section 3(c) of the Act, appointed Revenue Divisional Officers, Tahsildars and Revenue Block Development Officers in their respective jurisdictions to perform functions of Collector under the Act for the purpose of acquisition of lands for dwelling houses to the poor.
xxxxxx
In Ch. Venkataratnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1985 (2) ALT 84 (NRC). His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (as he then was) considered the question whether it is competent for Tahsildar to conduct enquiry under Section 5A and submit report to the Collector. After referring to G.O. Ms. No. 1378, dated 15.10.1975, His Lordship held as under:
Section 3A of the Act permits delegation of the functions of the Government to the District Collectors and in exercise of that power the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has delegated to the District Collector the authority to take a decision under Section 5A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act in cases relating to construction, extension or improvement of any dwelling house for the poor. The Tahsildar has ample jurisdiction to conduct enquiry under Section 5A and submit the report to the Collector, who, in his turn, was delegated with the powers of the Government under Section 3A read with G.O. Ms. No. 1378 Rev.(K), dated 15.10.1975 to take a decision on the report. A copy of the report of the Land Acquisition Officer prepared under Section 5A need not be supplied to the petitioner.”
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has placed before the Court the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 3-A of the Act delegating the powers to the District Collector for acquiring lands for A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation for establishing the industrial estates and Autonagar in Hindupur. In view of the said notification delegating powers, it is permissible for the Collector to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
9. In the result, in view of finding on second submission, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.