JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In this review petition, the point that is sought to be canvassed is that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been published in the name of the Collector and not the District Collector and, therefore, it is fatal to the Section 4(1) notification and so, the same will have to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in V. V. Ramachandra Rao. v. State, AIR 1980 Andh Pra 68, to which 1 am a party, wherein since the approval to the notification was accorded by the District Revenue Officer, it was held that the notification was not valid and so, the same was quashed. In that connection it was observed : --
"It is, therefore, manifest that the powers to be exercised by the District Collector cannot be exercised by the Collector. According to Para 2(1) of G.O.Ms.77, where a power has been vested in the District Collector as defined by Section 3(8) of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, by any statute, in such cases, the final orders can be passed only by the District Collector and none else, preliminaries though could be done by some other officer. Now, Act 22 of 1976, which amends the Central Act, speaks of the District Collector and not of Collector. The power to issue a notification afortiori vests only in the District Collector under Section 4. Since, on scrutiny, it transpires that the notification has nut received the approval of the District Collector but has been approved and signed by the District Revenue Officer, it cannot be held to be a valid one. The same is the view held by a Division Bench of this Court in A.P. No. 5414 of 1978 dated 16-4-1979 (Reported in AIR 1979 Andh Pra 264) Consequently, the impugned notification is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Advocates fee Rs. 150.00."
Again a Division Bench of this Court in K. Vamana Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1979 Andh Pra 264 held that the approval by the District Revenue Officer was bad notwithstanding the fact that there was a delegation under G.O.Ms. No. 77 dt. 22-1-1968, of the Powers of the District Collector to the District Revenue Officer.
(2.)It may, however, be made clear that in this case one Sri P. Ramakantha Rao, IAS, who worked as District Collector in point of lime from 26-4-1982 to 13-9-1983 personally signed both the draft notification as well as the draft declaration. A communication dt. 7-2-1987 addressed by the District Collector, Krishna, reads as under : --
"Sri P. Ramakantha Reddy, IAS worked as District Collector from 26-4-1982 to 13-9-1983 and that the Draft Notification and Draft Declarations relating to the land acquired in R.S. No. 264/2 Pan covered by an extent of Ac.25.00 Cents for providing house sites to BCs and EBCs of Muppala Village, were personally signed by him on 12-5-1983. No doubt, that both the notifications were signed by him. You have reported that the District is omitted prefix (o the Collector in the printed Gazette and the approved 4(1) notification in RC.G13-226/83 dt. 12-5-1983. In this connection, it is informed that the Gazette in which the notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published is captioned as special supplement to the Krishna District Gazette and that Sri. P. Raniakantha Reddy, IAS, was the District Collector, Krishna even on the date of the Notifications were approved i.e. 12-5-1983. The Notification would never be signed by any officials other than the Collector of the District personally under any circumstances."
(3.)Hence, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, I am of the view that since the notification has been in point , of fact, actually approved by the District Collector, the omission of prefix District in the printed notification would not be fatal to Section notification. It is true that under the A.P. General Clauses Act Collector and District Collectorl are defined separately and therefore there is a distinction between the Collector and the District Collector. But since in this case, there is positive material on record to show that the draft notification has been actually approved by the District Collector concerned, it has been issued in the printed notification as collector only. Therefore, this case should be treated as a singular one when it is held that the provisions of the Act stand complied with in view of the reason mentioned above. This decision should be confined to the peculiar facts of this case. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.