( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who are four in number with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the issuance of notification bearing No. G2/5945/2003, dated 6. 12. 2003 as amended by notification bearing no. G2/5945/2003, dated 8. 12. 2004 and all further proceedings including notification bearing No. G2/5945/2003, dated 9. 12. 2004 issued by the Collector, R. R. District-1st respondent as illegal, mala fide and contrary to law. ( 2 ) CH. Kiron-1st petitioner has sworn to the counter affidavit. The case of the petitioners as set out in the writ affidavit, in brief, is: petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 purchased Ac. 1-00 guntas, Ac. 1-00 guntas, Ac. 2-00 guntas and ac. 2-00 guntas respectively, totally admeasuring Ac. 6-00 guntas comprising sy. No. 90/1, situated at Gachibowli, serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, r. R. District belonging to M/s. A. M. E. I. Power Limited (in liquidation), represented by the Official Liquidator, appointed by this court, by way of assignment from the purchasers in the auction conducted in c. A. No. 598/2002 in R. C. C. No. 17/1998. The assignment in favour of the petitioners was accepted and recognized by the Court by an order dated 6. 11. 2002 in C. A. No. 849 of 2002 in C. A. No. 598 of 2002 in R. C. C. No. 17/ 1998 and the Official Liquidator was directed to execute sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of respective extents. The petitioners paid the entire consideration before the assignment and took possession of the said lands. They purchased the lands for the purpose of their commercial cum office requirements namely publishing and media business. They came to know that 1st respondent issued Section 4 (1) notification dated 16. 11. 2003 under Land Acquisition act published in A. P. Gazette, R. R. No. 63, dated 19. 11. 2003 and amendment thereto by notification bearing No. G2/5945/2003 dated 8. 12. 2004. Subsequently a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition act was made by proceedings in G2/5945/ 2003, dated 9. 12. 2004 declaring that an extent of Ac. 2-29 gts is needed for public purpose "to wit for formation of outer ring road". The amended notification dated 8. 12. 2004 under Section 4 (1) of the L. A. Act and declaration under section 6 of L. A. Act dated 9. 12. 12. 2004 declaring that an extent of Ac. 2-29 gts is needed for public purpose "to wit for formation of outer ring road". The amended notification dated 8. 12. 2004 under Section 4 (1) of the L. A. Act and declaration under section 6 of L. A. Act dated 9. 12. 2004 were published in A. P. Gazette Nos. 82 and 83 dated 9. 12. 2004 and 10. 12. 2004 respectively. The publications are simultaneous and without any gap and hence void. The amendment to Section 4 (1) notification is with regard to material aspects and thus a fresh notification of Section 4 (1) is required to be made. After amendment to section 4 (1) notification, no enquiry under section 5a has been conducted and thus issuance of Section 6 declaration basing on the said amended notification is not legal and proper. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioners I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the writ affidavit and it is thus:"4 (vii) It is further submitted that the alleged purpose of laying Outer Ring Road is not true or real and the lands are being acquired only with a view to cause wrongful loss to the petitioners by deliberately curving the proposed outer ring road, which is contrary to the purpose of any ring road, by changing the actual plan. A sketch is filed herewith showing the manner the proposed road was diverted taking almost a perpendicular curve to reach the petitioners land. Though, the purpose and object of outer ring road is to have straight road to ensure high speed with safety required for modern life, the illegal and wasteful diversion is resorted to cause wrongful loss to the petitioners in view of their frank publication of news interfering with their freedom of expression. Hence, the impugned action is mala fide and violative of Article 19 (1) of constitution of India. (viii) It is submitted that adjacent to the petitioners land, there are vast Government lands and the purpose of laying of ring road to ensure speed passage of traffic by avoiding any curves, which are unsafe. Hence, the impugned action is mala fide and violative of Article 19 (1) of constitution of India. (viii) It is submitted that adjacent to the petitioners land, there are vast Government lands and the purpose of laying of ring road to ensure speed passage of traffic by avoiding any curves, which are unsafe. The proposed outer ring road coming from miyapur to Gachibowli, if laid in a straight manner as is mandatory would have to be laid through the said Government lands, but under pressure from the persons, who are trying to get them assigned for their commercial and business purposes are also behind such illegal change of plans, resulting in such a illegal curve. The plan is deliberately diverted contrary to public interest in detriment to the interest of the public as well as the petitioner and hence acquisition is without any public interest and prejudicial exchequer. (ix) The petitioners have made valuable improvements, before impugned proceedings acting on the land use certificate issued by the second respondent. They are estopped from changing the same to the prejudice of petitioners. " ( 3 ) THE respondents filed counter- affidavit. The counter-affidavit, in brief, is : the Hyderabad Urban Development authority filed requisition for acquisition of lands comprising S. Nos. 2,3,4,6,10,90/2 situated at Gachibowli (V), Serilingampally mandal for laying of outer ring road. A draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the l. A. Act was published in A. P. Gazettee no. 63, dated 19. 11. 2003 notifying the lands in S. Nos. 2,3,4,6,10,90/2 situated at Gachibowli (V), Serilingampally Mandal admeasuring ac. 6-32 guntas situated at Gachibowli (V), serilingampally Mandal, R. R. District. The draft notification was also published in two daily newspapers Praja Shakthi (telugu) dated 10-12-2003 and The Hindu (english) dated 10-12-2003. The substance of draft notification was also got published in the locality on 5. 12. 2003. Form III notice under section 5 of L. A. Act was issued on 1. 1. 2004 inviting objections, if any, from the land owners and interested persons within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice in the locality. Form III notice was published in the locality on 5. 1. 2004 and a copy of the notice was also affixed on the factory sheds located in S. No. 90/2 on 5. 1. 2004 in the presence of witnesses due to non-availability of any one to receive the notice. Form III notice was published in the locality on 5. 1. 2004 and a copy of the notice was also affixed on the factory sheds located in S. No. 90/2 on 5. 1. 2004 in the presence of witnesses due to non-availability of any one to receive the notice. No one has filed objections in response to the draft notification under section 4 (1) within the specified period. An enquiry under Section 5a was conducted by the LAO on 9. 1. 2004. Neither the notified person nor the persons interested or the writ petitioners appeared before the LAO, huda to raise objections for acquisition of land. As such further action was taken by the LAO for publication of draft declaration under Section 6 of the L. A. Act duly completing the survey and sub-division work. During the course of survey and sub- division work, it was found that the land in s. No. 90/1 to an extent of Ac. 2-29 guntas was coming under the alignment of Outer ring Road instead of land in S. No. 90/2 admeasuring Ac. 2-21 gts. As such proposals for amendment to draft notification incorporating the structures existing in s. No. 90/1 were submitted to the Collector, r. R. District for approval through the LAO, huda. The Collector, R. R. District approved the amendment to the draft notification and got it published in A. P. Gazette No. 82, dated 9. 12. 2004 apart from paper publication in two daily newspapers; varthamanam (telugu) and Citizen Daily (English) on 10-12-2004. As per revenue records, the land owner for both the survey numbers No. 90/1 and 90/2 is one and the same i. e. T. K. Shyam, Director, A. M. I. E. Power Ltd. The draft notification under section 6 of the L. A. Act was approved by the Collector, R. R. District on 9. 12. 2004 and got published in A. P. Gazette No. 83, dated 10-12-2004 apart from paper publications; Andhra Jyothi (Telugu) and deccan Chronicle (English) on 13. 12. 2004. The substance of the draft notification was also published in the locality on 10. 12. 2004. The writ petitioners never objected for the acquisition of land comprising either S. No. 90/2 or 90/1. As per the master plan approved by the Government vide G. O. Ms. No. 538 m. A. , dated 29. 10. 12. 2004. The substance of the draft notification was also published in the locality on 10. 12. 2004. The writ petitioners never objected for the acquisition of land comprising either S. No. 90/2 or 90/1. As per the master plan approved by the Government vide G. O. Ms. No. 538 m. A. , dated 29. 10. 2001 there is a provision for road touching S. No. 90 situated at gachibowli junction. The purpose of acquisition of land is for laying of Outer ring Road which is a public purpose. Accordingly, action has been initiated under l. A. Act. Laying of outer ring road around the city is taken as a prestigious project and it is taken out for the use of general public. ( 4 ) THE petitioners filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the enquiry conducted under Section 5a of L. A. Act prior to the issuance of amendment to section 4 (1) notification is irrelevant as it does not pertain to the lands claimed by the petitioners. Para 4 of the reply affidavit reads as under:"4. It is submitted that the allegations that substance was published locally on 5. 12. 2003 and on 1. 1. 2004 and 5-A enquiry was conducted on 9. 1. 2004 and on 10. 12. 2004 in para 3 of the counter are false and hence, denied. They are irrelevant and are no consequence as they do not pertain to the petitioners land admittedly and it was only during the course of survey of sub-division work, the respondents realized that the land required by them is in Survey No. 90/1 and not 90/2 and amendment was made only as per the publication in Gazette dated 9. 12. 2004. Therefore, all the alleged proceedings under the Act, if any are irrelevant and on consequential till 9. 12. 2004. It shows that the respondents were only interested in causing harm to the petitioners and not in the land as such. It is untenable to say the petitioners did not object to the proceedings made in respect of Survey No. 90/1. Such void and mala fide proceedings cannot be cured by an amendment, which is not contemplated by the Act. " ( 5 ) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the first respondent and learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Such void and mala fide proceedings cannot be cured by an amendment, which is not contemplated by the Act. " ( 5 ) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the first respondent and learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that notification dated 8. 12. 2004 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 (1) and thus it is to be treated as nonest in law and thereby entire proceedings consequent to the said notification are to be declared as null and void. In elaborating his submissions, he contends that Section 4 (1) notification is required to be published in the official gazette, and daily newspapers having circulation in the locality where the property situates and since Varthamanam (Telugu) in which the notification has been published has no wide circulation, Section 4 (1) notification suffers from incurable defect and it is liable to be set-aside. A further submission has been made that the very issuance of amendment to the earlier notification is motivated with the sole object of acquiring the lands of the petitioners. What he means to say is that the original ring road plan has been planned in such a way to cover the lands of the petitioners and it is motivated and fraud on power. It is also submitted by him that Section 6 declaration in respect of the lands of the petitioners is in contravention of the provisions of the l. A. Act since the same has been affected without giving any opportunity to the effected persons to file objections to the proposed acquisition of lands. Yet another submission has been made that the very scheme of formation of ring road is without obtaining permission from HUDA as contemplated under A. P. Urban Areas (Development) act, 1975. A strenuous contention has been repeatedly made by the learned Counsel that the respondents have played fraud and used their power in issuing the amendment to the original notification under Section 4 of l. A. Act so as to cover the lands of petitioners in formation of outer ring road. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions: 1. Delhi Administration v. Gurdip singh Uban, 1999 (6) ALD 1 (SC) = 1999 (7) SCC 44 . 2. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions: 1. Delhi Administration v. Gurdip singh Uban, 1999 (6) ALD 1 (SC) = 1999 (7) SCC 44 . 2. Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of haryana and others, 2005 (2) ALD 106 (SC) = 2005 (9) SCC 164 . 3. Pratibha Nema and others v. State of M. P. and others, AIR 2003 SC 3140 = 2004 AILD 37 (SC ). 4. Nandatai v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (6) SCC 407 . 5. State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy, AIR 1996 SC 90 . 6. Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, chandigarh, AIR 2004 SC 3648 . 7. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, 2005 (6) ald 53 (SC) = 2005 (7) SCC 627 . 8. Narendrajit v. State of U. P. , AIR 1971 SC 306. 9. Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda municipality, AIR 1970 SC 802 . 10. Sunderlal v. Paramsukhdas, AIR 1968 SC 366 . 11. M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Spl. Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), neyveli, AIR 1995 SC 1004 . 12. Peddi Anjaiah v. LAO and RDO, 2002 (2) ALD 599 = 2002 (2) ALT 167 . 13. Pamulaparthy Narasimha Reddy v. Government of A. P. , 2002 Supp. (1) ald 724. 14. U. K. Murthy v. Government of a. P. , 1997 (5) ALD 288 . 15. Mohd. Khaja v. Government of a. P. , 1982 (2) ALT 138 . 16. Visakha Seva Sangham v. Project director, National Highway Authority of India, Vishakhapatnam, WP no. 23611/2001, dated 21. 11. 2001. 17. A. L. N. Prasad (Dr.) v. State of a. P. , 1997 (3) ALT 516 . 18. Secretary to Government of T. N. v. J. Sivaprakasam, 2005 AIHC 3073. 19. Copal Innani v. State, AIR 1982 ap 474 . ( 7 ) SRI. P. Rajagopala Rao, learned counsel appearing for Land Acquisition officer, HUDA-2nd respondent submits that the amended notification is only in respect of a survey number and therefore it dates back to the original notification and in which case the petitioners are not entitled to raise any objections to Section 4 (1) notification since they had no interest in the lands as on that date. It is also submitted by him that the petitioners as on this day do not have any registered documents in their favour and therefore they are not entitled to raise any objection to Section 4 (1) notification as well as Section 6 declaration and at the most they are entitled to participate in the award enquiry to claim compensation. A further submission has been made that the acquisition is for laying the outer ring road which is for the public purpose and the objections raised by the petitioners attributing mala fides to the authorities have no basis and are ill-founded. A further submission has been made that the original notification and amended notification published under section 4 (1) and original declaration and amended declaration published under section 6 of the Act are in accordance with the provisions of L. A. Act and the same are not liable to be interfered. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Supreme Court in (1) Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of haryana, (supra) (2) Mohan Singh v. International airport Authority of India, 1997 (9) scc 132 . (3) Pratibha Nema v. State of M. P. (supra) (4) Nandatai v. State of Maharashtra (supra) (5) State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy (supra) (6) Delhi Administration v. Gurdip singh Urban (supra) (7) P. Choudrani v. District Social welfare Officer, (LA), Cuddapah, 1979 (1) ALT NRC 59 (DB) (8) U. K. Murthy v. Government of A. P. (supra) (9) Pamulaparthy Narasimha Reddy v. Government of A. P. (supra) (10) Smt. Bijanbee and District Collector, rr, W. A. No. 294 and Batch, dated 7-10-2005. (11) Chalasani Lakshmi v. State of A. P. , w. A. No. 414/2000, dated 7. 6. 2000. (12) Peddi Anjaiah v. LAO and RDO (supra) ( 8 ) THE two issues which require to be resolved in this writ petition are : (i) Whether Section 4 (1) notification is valid? (ii) Whether Section 6 declaration is valid? ( 9 ) BEFORE dwelling on the rival contentions of the parties a brief resume of facts need to be noted. M/s. A. M. E. I. Power limited owns land comprising S. Nos. 90/1 and 90/2. The company went into liquidation. An Official Liquidator came to be appointed. (ii) Whether Section 6 declaration is valid? ( 9 ) BEFORE dwelling on the rival contentions of the parties a brief resume of facts need to be noted. M/s. A. M. E. I. Power limited owns land comprising S. Nos. 90/1 and 90/2. The company went into liquidation. An Official Liquidator came to be appointed. In the process of realization of assets of the company, certain properties were auctioned by the Court i. e. plant and machinery, land-bearing S. No. 90/1 along with structures etc. The land bearing S. No. 90/1 along with structures with a built up area came to be purchased by Mr. Narender dhanpal and others in the said auction. The auction purchasers assigned their rights in favour of the petitioners. The official liquidator on behalf of the original owner, and the auction purchasers executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners. The sale deeds are presented for registration and they are yet to be registered. A fact remains that as on this day M/s. A. M. E. I. Power limited is the registered owner of the lands comprising S. Nos. 90/1 and 90/2. The original notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act issued in Form IIA is dated 16. 11. 2003. It came to be published in A. P. Gazette on 19. 11. 2003. After Section 5a enquiry, section 6 declaration came to be published on 10. 12. 2004. On coming to know that the outer ring road covers survey No. 90/1 instead S. No. 90/2, a notification came to be issued by way of amendment to the original notification. The amended notification is dated 8. 12. 2004. It came to be published in a. P. Gazette on 9. 12. 2004. The amendment dated 9. 12. 2004 to the draft declaration under section 6 of the L. A. Act also came to be published in A. P. Gazette on 10. 12. 2004. For better understanding, I may refer the original Section 4 (1) notification as well as the errata issued to the original notification. The relevant portion of notification dated 16. 11. 2003 published in A. P. Gazette dated 19. 11. 2003 reads as follows: