- (1.)THIS appeal has been preferred by the petitioner not being satisfied with the questioning of the S. 6 declaration and the direction to conduct a S. 5a inquiry, given in his favour. The petitioner is now seeking quashing of S. 4 (1) notification itself on two grounds. The first point raised is that the publication in the newspapers in respect of S. 4 (1) notification was on 4-6-1991, whereas the gazette notification was only on 26-6-1991 and that this is illegal. The second point is that the acquisition is by the State Government for the purpose of developmental activities of the Kollam Municipality, but ultimately the State Government has handed over the plot of the appellant and some other land acquired, to the Railways and therefore the acquisition ought to have been for the purpose of Central Government and not for the Stale Government and in any event the land acquired for one purpose could not be used for another purpose.
(2.)SO far as the first point is concerned, the counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in The Collector (District Magistrate, Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal (AIR 1985 SC 1622 ). That was a case which was decided on facts, which arose prior to 1984 amendment of the Land Acquisition Act. At that point of time S. 4 (1) requires a publication in the Gazette as well as the substance of such notification in the locality. The question that arose before the Supreme Court was as to whether the substance should have been published earlier or the gazette notification later. The Supreme Court held that the substance could not have been validly published unless S. 4 (1) notification was anterior. But in our view the said decision cannot help the appellant. The amended S. 4 (1) reads as follows: " Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that 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 at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of 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. " It is to be noticed that before the amendment in 1984 the publication in two daily newspapers was not one of the requirement of S. 4 (1 ). There was only a requirement of publication of notification in the gazette and a further publication of the substance. thereof in the locality. Obviously the substance of "such notification" referred to such a notification under S. 4 (1) already published in the gazette. That is the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Ram's Case. But the situation is not identical so far as the publication in the two daily newspapers is concerned. The publication in the official gazette and in the two daily newspapers is a single concept and the Statute does not say that what has to be published in the daily newspapers is the substance of the gazette notification. If in fact the Statute had said that the publication in the two daily newspapers should be of the substance of the S. 4 (1) notification, then obviously such substance could not have been published unless the gazette notification was first published. In the Statute so far as it relates to the gazette notification and the two daily newspapers are concerned, there is no such limitation and the language employed by the legislature ,is totally different from the language for the purpose of publishing the substance of the notification in the locality. Further, last clause of S. 4 (1) notification, which states that the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice shall be referred to as the date of the publication of the notification, shows that there is no restriction now as to whether the official gazette notification is earlier or the publication in the two daily newspapers are earlier. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the official gazette notification under S. 4 (1) should precede the publication in the two daily newspapers. The publication in the gazette and the two daily newspapers is a publication of the notification, whereas the publication in the locality is of the substance of the notification. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel based on Raja Ram's case is liable to be rejected. We may state that the view which we have taken is also in accordance with the view of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Garg Farm, Delhi v. State of U. P. & others (AIR 1990 All. 1) and that was also with a view of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gompa Dali Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department (1990 (2) ALT 363 ). In this Court, we have also followed the judgment in Bhaskara Panicker v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 580), though for a slightly different purpose.
As far as the second point is concerned, we found from the counter affidavit filed by the Central Government as well as the State Government that the acquisition was for the purpose of the developmental activities of the Municipality and it was necessarily an acquisition of the State Government. However, the correspondence anterior to the acquisition and subsequent to the acquisition would disclose that the Municipality had agreed to have the land of its own will be handed over to the Railways for the purpose of construction of Railway quarters, in exchange for establishment of Railway land for a bus stand. This land which is given in exchange by the Municipality to the Railways is for the purpose of Railway Quarters. The old quarters are not in existence in the other land liable to be surrendered by the Railways to the Municipality and those quarters are to be demolished and the Municipality is to construct a Bus Stand. The particular point where the Bus Stand is to be located is the place where the Railways had already constructed the quarters. It was an integrated plan of which the acquisition for the Municipality in respect of the land of the petitioner, is a part. We do not find any illegality in the present acquisition of the land by the State Government for the purpose of Municipality with a view to enable the Municipality to get the land in exchange from the Railways, which is suitable for a Bus Stand. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. .

;