JUDGMENT
Jayachandra Reddy, J.
1. In these writ appeals, a question of general importance is raised namely, whether the amendment of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the Central Act 68 of 1984 and the A.P. Amendment 9 of 1983 renders the publication of the notification in the newspapers mandatory and if so, whether such publication should be prior to causing public notice of the substance of such notification locally, or can it also be later and if so, what should be the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act? In case it is published later in newspapers, whether can be the date of publication of the notification as required under Section 4(1).
2. The question arises in the following circumstances : The land in question situated in Narasaraopet, Guntur District, was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely for construction of houses for Government Class IV and Non-Gazetted Employees Cooperative Building Society. The notification to that effect was published in the Gazette on 15-10-1984. The substance of the said notification was caused to be published in the locality on 23-11-1984. Meanwhile on 24-9-1984 the Central Act 68 of 1984 came into force arid as per that amendment, the notification has to be published in two newspapers circulating in the locality, of which one should be in regional language. The notification was then published on 25-3-1985 in the two dailies. It was followed by Section 6 declaration published on 21-3-1986. Questioning the said notification, W.P. No. 5424 of 1986 was filed. Our learned brother Seetharama Reddy, J., allowed the writ petition holding that the publication in the newspapers is beyond 40 days and likewise Section 6 declaration is beyond one year and therefore, the notification under Section 4(1) is invalid and accordingly allowed the writ petition. The Employees Co-operative Building Society has filed W.A. No. 466 of 1987 and the Government has filed W.A. No. 386 of 1987.
3. It is contended before us that the publication in the newspapers is not mandatory and, at any rate, such a publication can also be after causing public notice of the substance locally and the date of publication of the notification shall be the date on which such publication is made in newspapers, and therefore the notification under Section 4(1) in this case is not invalid and consequently the declaration under Section 6 which was published on 21-3-1986 is also within one year and is therefore valid. To appreciate this contention, it becomes necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Section 4(1) as amended by the Central Act reads thus:
(4) Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon :
(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the land in any locality (is needed or) is likely to be needed for any public purpose (or for a Company) a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette (and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which atleast one shall be in the regional
language) and public notice of the substance
of such notification to be given at convenient
places in the said locality (the last date or the
dates of such publication and the giving of
such public notice being hereinafter referred
to as the date of the publication of the
notification).
In A.P. Amendment Act No. 9 of 1983, the words “the Collector shall within 40 days from the date of publication of such notification cause” have been added after the words “in the regional language”.
4. A careful analysis of this section as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 yields the following results:
1) The Government must satisfy itself that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company;
2) A notification to that effect shall be
published in the Official Gazette;
3) Such a notification should also be published in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of which one shall be in the regional language;
4) The Collector shall cause the substance of the notification published locally; and
5) The last of the dates, namely, the date of publication of the notification in the local newspapers and the date of public notice locally shall be the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4( 1).
5. The requirement of publication in the newspapers is obviously introduced with a view to put the landholders on notice because they may not be in a position to notice the publication in the Gazette. In the statement of objects and reasons, it is noted as follows : “With the enormous expansion of the State’s role in promoting public welfare and economic development since independence, acquisition of land for public purposes, industrialisation, building of institutions etc., has become far more numerous than ever before. While this is inevitable, promotion of public purpose has to be balanced with the rights of the individual whose land is acquired, thereby often depriving him of his means of livelihood. Again, acquisition of land for private enterprises ought not to be placed on the same footing as acquisition for the State or for an enterprise under it. The individual and institution who are unavoidably to be deprived of their property rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interests of the community. The pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods often cause hardship to the affected parties and renders unrealistic the scale of compensation offered to them”. Therefore, the interpretation of these newly added provisions should be in the background of these objects and reasons. At the same time, the paper publication if made even after causing public notice, that cannot by itself invalidate the notification. For fixing the date of the notification, the Legislature has taken care to see that the last date of the publication namely the date of publication in the newspapers or the date of causing public notice whichever is later, shall be the date of publication of such notification. This date as we all know is relevant for the purpose of fixing compensation under Section 23. Therefore, if there is any delay in such publication, the land-holder cannot be put to disadvantage by taking the date of gazette publication as the relevant date. The egislature has restructured the framework of acquisition balancing all these factors. The publication in the newspapers, as is clear from the section, is therefore, mandatory.
6. The next question is whether such a publication should always precede the publication of the substance locally. We do not think that there is any basis to hold that such publication in the local newspaper should always precede the publication of substance locally. No doubt in the section, three stages are mentioned one after the other. The first stage is the publication in the Official Gazette; the next stage is publication in the newspapers and the third stage is publication of the substance locally. Before the Amendment Act, the requirement of publication in the newspapers was not there, and it is introduced with a view to put the landholders on notice. For all official purposes, the two important stages are the publication of the notification in the Gazette and the publication of the
substance locally. The publication in the newspapers can be either before the publication of substance locally or later, but normally should be within a reasonable time. In this context, we should also know what would be the consequence if there is unreasonable delay. For any delay at that stage it is only the acquisitioning authorities that can be responsible. Because of that delay, the landlord should not be put at a disadvantage and therefore, the Legislature by way of amendment has introduced the words “last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification”. In a case where the newspaper publication is later, that shall be the date of the publication of Section 4(1) notification and therefore, the delay in such publication cannot be to the dis-advantage of the land-holder. At one stage it was considered that the publication of the notification in newspaper can even be prior to the notification in the Official Gazette. Prima facie, this contention does not appeal to us. The decision to acquire involves exercise of sovereign power and the law requires that it shall be published in official Gazette and with such publication the acquisition proceedings are initiated followed by other steps. However, this question does not directly arise in this case. It must be remembered that in the Act before it was amended in the year 1984, the publication in the Official Gazette was prescribed to the first step and then a publication of the substance in the locality. After the amendment also the publication in the newspapers was declared to be subsequent to the Gazette publication. There is no indication in the amended ‘Act that the publication in the newspapers, though mandatory, can also be interior to the Gazette publication.
7. Now we shall examine the scope of the amendment by the A.P. Amendment Act 9 of 1983. As per the said Amendment Act, “the Collector shall within 40 days from the date of publication of such notification cause” the public notice of substance locally. The words “such notification” in our view are referable to the Gazette Notification, or publication in two newspapers, if published by then. Therefore, after such notification is published in the Gazette or newspapers, the Collector shall, within 40 days thereafter, i.e., 40 days after the last of “such publications”, obviously the last publication in the newspaper, cause the substance of the notification published locally. Then the question is whether the publication of the lotification in the newspapers should always be before the publication of the substance ocally. Our answer is, it need not be. The publication in the official Gazette should always be the first stage. There cannot be any doubt about it. Then as per the Central amendment, the Collector should publish the notification in two newspapers — one being in the local language — and then give the public notice by publishing the substance locally. As per the Andhra Pradesh amendment such a publication in the locality shall be within 40 days from “such notification”, which includes publication in the official Gazette and publication in the two newspapers. The publication in the newspapers should no doubt be after the sublication of the notification in the Gazette, but it can be either before the publication of the substance locally, or even thereafter. In such a case, the date of publication of the notification for the steps to be taken thereafter shall be the date of the publication of the notification in the newspapers, as that happened to be the later date. Therefore,, in such a situation, the publication in the locality as per the Andhra Pradesh amendment can be either 40 days from the Gazette publication or 40 days from the date of newspaper publication, because in our view the words “such notification” include all the three publications, viz., one in the Gazette, and two in the newspapers. Seetharam Reddy, J. in v considered this question. He however held “the publication of Section 4(1) notification in the newspapers shall be either simultaneous with or later to the notification published in the Official Gazette, but it should be made on any date before the publication of its substance in the locality”. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, the publication in the newspapers should also be within 40 days from the date of the Gazette publication. We have already observed that the publication in the newspapers is only with a view to put the landholders on notice of the acquisition and then the date of notification under Section 4(1) is fixed. Now, as per the amended provisions, such “date of notification” will always be the date, i.e., either the date of the publication in the newspapers or the date of local publication whichever is later. If we keep the objects and reasons as mentioned in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) in view, this interpretation of the provisions stands to scrutiny and does not result in any anomaly. In Uday Kaushik v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 Delhi 101, the Division Bench consisting of Ranganathan and Goel JJ. observed that the date of publication of the notification in the newspapers can be last of the dates for the purpose of Section 4(1) notification.
8. From the above discussion it emerges, that the notification in the Official Gazette ‘should be the first stage. Then comes the publication in the two newspapers. The Collector shall cause the substance of the notification published locally. The publication in the newspapers can be prior to such local publication or even later. As per the Andhra Pradesh amendment, the substance of the notification should be published within 40 days from “such notification”, i.e., it can be within 40 days from the date of the publication in the official Gazette, or within 40 days from the date of the last publication in the newspapers. The last of the dates of such publication (normally it will be the publication in the newspapers), or the date of publication of the substance locally, whichever is later, will be the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) for the rest of the purposes.
9. Coming to the facts of the case before us, the Gazette publication was on 15-10-1984 and the substance was published on 23-11-1984 and, therefore, it is within 40 days and satisfies the legal requirements. The publication in the two newspapers was on 25-3-1985 but in the view we have taken, such a publication does not render the notification under Section 4(1) invalid arid consequently Section 6 notification which is within one year is also valid.
10. Yet another ground which is not considered by the learned single Judge and urged before us is that the acquisition is for a Company and the procedure laid down under Chap. VII has not been followed and therefore, the notification under Section 4(1) is invalid. In Jhandu Lal v. State of Punjab, it is observed (at p. 347) :
“The declaration for the acquisition for a public purpose, similarly, cannot be made unless the compensation wholly or partly, is to be paid out of public funds.”
11. In the instant case the acquisition is for providing houses to all the members of the Society and it is held in a number of cases thai where the Government agrees to contribute a part of compensation it becomes for public purpose. In Jhandu Lal v. State of Punjab (supra), their Lordships held that where the acquisition is made for public purpose the cost of compensation has to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenue or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.
12. Prom the record in this case it is clear that the Government has contributed Rs. 100/- towards token grant and the same was paid from the office of the Collector, Guntur. Though the registered Co-operative Society comes within the meaning of “Company”, this does not automatically warrant that the procedure in Chap. VII should be followed. In the instant case the acquisition is for construction of houses for the members of the Society as such and not for individuals and therefore it becomes a public purpose if the Government contribution is there, which requirement is satisfied in this case, and therefore this objection also cannot be upheld. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and allow the writ appeals. No costs.