COMMON ORDER--The Government in Transport, Roads and Buildings Department issued G.O. Rt. No.50, dated 17.1.1980, approving the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire an extent of Acs.5.25 cents of land in Survey No.79111 of Darsi Village and Taluk, Prakasam District. It was published in the A.P. State Gazette, dated 18.6.1980. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held in November 1980 and thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved in G.O. Rt. No.162, dated 16.6.1982, published in the State Gazette, dated 10.8.1982. W.P. No.l2348 of 1984 is filed challenging the notifications published under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act on several grounds, such as, that the name of the actual owner was not mentioned in the notifications, the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the locality within the stipulated time, the award was not passed within 2 years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No.15688 of 2001 claims to be the purchaser of part of the property, vide sale deed, dated 22.9.1994. Obviously to protect his interests under the sale deed, the petitioner had filed the writ petition, challenging the notifications, on the same grounds as pleaded in W.P. No.12348 of 1984 and complaining that the constructions raised by him are being demolished. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed in W.P. No.12348 of 1984, the fact that the notifications were published on the dates mentioned above is admitted. It is stated that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 17.1.1980. An objection is raised as to the locus standi of the petitioner, mainly on the ground that' certain agencies such as Property Association of Baptist Churches (P ABC) and Samavesham of Telugu Baptist Church (STBC) have also laid claims. It is also stated that advance possession of the land was taken on 12.8.1984 and award was passed on 27.8.1985. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the notifications in respect of the lands of the petitioners are untenable on the face of it. It is also stated that advance possession of the land was taken on 12.8.1984 and award was passed on 27.8.1985. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the notifications in respect of the lands of the petitioners are untenable on the face of it. He contends that admittedly, the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published within 40 days as mandated under the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act 9 of 1983'). He further contends that the question of taking possession of the land before an award is passed does not arise, where an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is held. Certain other grounds are also urged. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC which is a party to WP No.15688 of 2001, submit that the acquisition was challenged by P ABC and STBC in WP No.4667 of 1988 and that the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28.1.1997. It is urged that once possession of the land is taken and award is passed may be at different points of time, it is no longer open to the petitioners to challenge the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. A serious objection is raised as to the locus standi of the petitioners also. 6. Both the learned Counsel have relied upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, touching on the applicability of Act 9 of 1983 to the facts of the present case. 7. WP No. 12348 of 1984 was allowed way back on 1.7.1988, on the ground that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published and that the award was not passed within two years from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The APSRTC, which was not a party to that writ petition, filed W.A. No.1886 of 1988, against the order, dated 1.7.1988. The W.A. was allowed on 14.7.1994, by observing that the facts with reference to the relevant records, were not discussed in detail. The order, dated 1.7.1988, was set aside and the writ petition was directed to be heard afresh. 8. The W.A. was allowed on 14.7.1994, by observing that the facts with reference to the relevant records, were not discussed in detail. The order, dated 1.7.1988, was set aside and the writ petition was directed to be heard afresh. 8. Before undertaking discussion on merits, the objection raised by the respondents as to the locus standi of the petitioners needs to be taken into account. The petitioner in WP No.12348 of 1984 is a society. The acquired property is said to be under its control and occupation. There appears to be some internal arrangement among the petitioner, STBC and PABC. Learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. has placed before this Court a bunch of papers, including the representation, dated 13.5.1997, said to have been made jointly by the P.A.B.C. and the petitioner in W.P. No.12348 of 1984. A perusal of the same discloses that they have got close inter relation and communication. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not have locus standi. 9. Another objection is raised, on the ground that once these very notifications are upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WP No.4667 of 1988, it is no longer open to the petitioners to assail the same notifications. Firstly, the petitioners are not parties to W.P. No.4667 of 1988. Secondly, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, on the ground that the possession of the land was taken by APSRTC on 12.8.1984 and that the Bus Stand has been constructed. No discussion was entertained on merits or with reference to provisions of law. Even according to the respondents, award was passed only on 27.8.1985 and the question of taking possession of the land earlier thereto does not arise, when admittedly enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held. This important aspect does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court. This observation is made not to doubt the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court but only to drive home the point that not being parties to WP No.4667 of 1988, the petitioners cannot suffer any detriment on account of the dismissal thereof. 10. The objection raised by the petitioners that the notifications cannot be sustained in law, on account of their names not being mentioned in the notification, is untenable. 10. The objection raised by the petitioners that the notifications cannot be sustained in law, on account of their names not being mentioned in the notification, is untenable. The names are mentioned in the notifications, only on the basis of the information available and it is for the concerned parties to work out their remedies at various stages of the proceedings. Now remains the main plea urged on behalf of the petitioners viz., notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the locality within the stipulated time. Section 4(1) of the Act directs publication of three categories of publications viz., in the Gazette, in the locality, and in the newspapers. Though Section 4 of the Act, as it stood in the year 1984, did not make any mention about the time, within which the substance of the notification must be published, a Full Bench of this Court in Yadaiah v. Government of A.P., 1983 (1) ALT 233, held that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act must be published in the locality simultaneously with the publication in the Gazette. Obviously to overcome the judgments of the Full Bench, The A.P. State Legislature stepped in and brought into existence the Act 9 of 1983. Through that Act, Section 4 of the Act was amended with retrospective effect from 12.9.1975, providing for publication of the substance of the notification in the locality within 40 days from the date of publication in the Gazette. The relevant provision reads as under : "In its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh in sub-section (1) of Section 4, (w.e.f. 12.9.1975) for the words "the Collector shall, cause', the words 'the Collector shall, within forty days from the date of publication of such notification, cause' shall be substituted." 11. The effect of this is that any notification under Section 4(1) of the Act that was published subsequent to 12.9.1975 would become invalid, if the substance of the same was not published in the locality within 40 days. This aspect of the matter fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mohd. Amri Khan, 1986 (1) SCC 3 . This aspect of the matter fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Mohd. Amri Khan, 1986 (1) SCC 3 . It was held that the Andhra Pradesh amendment is clear in its terms and hardly leaves any doubt that if the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is not published within 40 days from the date of publication in the Gazette, the notification becomes invalid. The same ratio applies to the fact of this case also. 12. On behalf of the respondents, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjeevanagar Medical and Health Employees Cooperative Housing Society v. Mohammad Abdulwaahab, 1996 (3) SCC 600 = 1996 (3) ALD (SCSN) 15. Though reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amrikhan's case (supra) and the purport thereof was discussed, nowhere any different view was expressed. On the other hand, the principle laid down in Amrikhan's case (supra), was reiterated. The attempt on the part of the legislation of the State Enactment Act 9 of 1983 was to resurrect a notification, which was set aside by a Full Bench of this Court. It was intended to be a poisonous drug to liquidate the judgment. However, it turned out to be the life saving drug for the petitioners. 13. It is beyond any pale of doubt that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 17.11.1980 and it is clearly beyond 40 days and to be precise, 5 months from the date, on which the notification was published in the Gazette. 14. Therefore, the writ petitions are allowed and the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act are- set aside. The award said to have been passed in consequence thereof would also become untenable in law and if a amount was deposited by the respondent on the strength of such award, it shall open to them to take back the same. In case, the respondents still want the land in question, it is needless to observe that it shall always be open to them to take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.