Judgment At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Smt. A.Chaya Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in R.C.No.G4/5158/2007 dated 22.12.2007 in respect of Acs.1.88 cents of land belonging to the petitioner and situated in survey No.58/1 of Kalwapudi Agraharam Village, Gudiwada Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the abovementioned land. She has got this land from her parents through Pasupu Kumkuma at the time of her marriage. Following her marriage, the petitioner has been residing at her husband’s place away from the Village, in which the land is situated while her parents are looking after the agriculture being carried on in the said land. In order to provide house sites to the poor, the respondents have issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was published on 08.11.2007 in two newspapers, namely, the Hindu – English daily and Janatha – Telugu daily. It is the specific plea of the petitioner that as the said two newspapers do not have circulation in the village in which the land is situated, objections could not be filed by her or her parents on her behalf. Consequently, the petitioner went unrepresented in the purported enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act leading to publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 22.12.2007. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition questioning the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. This Court, while ordering notice before admission on 21.01.2008, granted interim order of status quo regarding possession of the land in question. It has come out at the hearing that as a result of the interim order, the acquisition proceedings are not completed. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Gudiwada, respondent No.2 herein, it is inter alia stated that the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 02.11.2007, the Hindu English daily newspaper on 08.11.2007, Janatha Telugu daily newspaper on 09.11.2007 and the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 10.11.2007. It is further stated that Form III was sought to be served on the petitioner and that as she was not residing in the Village, the same was affixed in the notice board of Gram Panchayat Office on 08.11.2007 besides affixing the same to a stick and erected on the land proposed for acquisition as a token of service of notice on the petitioner. As neither the petitioner nor her representative attended the enquiry on 23.11.2007 nor any objections were filed, draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was sent for the District Collector’s approval and accordingly the same was approved by the District Collector on 18.12.2007. The draft declaration was accordingly published in the Gazette, two newspapers and in the locality. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that the Hindu and Janata newspapers are having reasonable circulation in the Village and that as there are no other suitable lands in the Village, the land belonging to the petitioner is proposed for acquisition. In the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is inter alia stated that her enquiry revealed that there is no circulation of Janata and Hindu newspapers in the Village. In support ofthis plea, the petitioner has filed letter dated 05.03.2008 of the Public Information Officer of District Library, Krishna District, letter of the Sarpanch of Kalawapudi Agraharam Village and letter dated 03.03.2008 of Sarpanch of Pedapalapurru Gram Panchayat addressed to the paper agents of Andhra Jyothi, Vaartha and Eenadu newspapers in the area in which the land proposed to be acquired is situated. It is further averred that as the mandatory requirement under Section 4(1) of the Act was not complied with, the said notification itself is liable to be set aside. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly laid emphasis on the issue relating to non-publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act in the newspapers having circulation in the Village. This Court, while dealing with a similar contention in M.Prabhakar Reddy and others vs. District Collector, Machilipatnam and others judgment dated 30.11.2007 in W.P.No.22503 of 2006 upheld the contention of the petitioners therein that Janata daily newspaper has no circulation in Janardhanapuram, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District. In the present case, the land is situated in Kalwapudi Agrahram Village, Gudiwada Mandal, Krishna District. In the present case, the land is situated in Kalwapudi Agrahram Village, Gudiwada Mandal, Krishna District. Except stating that Janata Telugu daily newspaper has reasonable circulation in the area where the land is situated, the respondents have not filed any material in support thereof. As noted above, along with the reply-affidavit, the petitioner filed the certificates issued by the Sarpanches of two Villages in whose area the land is situated. In the certificate dated 03.03.2008 issued by the Sarpanch of Kalwapudi Agraharam Gram Panchayat, it is stated that the villagers have subscribed for three daily Telugu newspapers, namely, Eenadu, Andhra Jyothi and Vaartha and that no other newspaper is in circulation in the said village. A similar certificate dated 03.03.2008 was issued by the Sarpanch of Pedapalapurru Gram Panchayat. The Public Information Officer in his certificate dated 05.03.2008 has stated that for Gudiwada Public Library, seven newspapers of regional language are subscribed, namely, Andhra Jyothi, Praja Sakthi, Andhra Prabha, Eenadu, Andhra Bhoomi, Vaartha and Visalaandra. The petitioner also filed similar certificate of the agents of the regional Telugu newspapers having circulation in the area, namely, Eenadu, Andhra Jyothi and Vaartha. The authenticity of this material is not disputed by the respondents. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the respondents failed to publish the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act at least in one newspaper published in the regional language having circulation in the area. The judgment in Spl. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, CMDA vs. J.Sivaprakasam 2010 (12) SCALE 110 relied upon by the learned Government Pleader is of no avail to the respondents because in the said case, the Apex Court held that the words “newspapers circulating in the locality” if interpreted in a purely literal and normal sense, they would mean newspapers having a regular and study circulation among the general public in the locality irrespective of its number and that in a given case even a newspaper having 2 to 3% market share out of total circulation can be considered as a newspaper circulating in the locality. The Apex Court, however, held that if there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers or if the two daily newspapers, in which publication was made, have no circulation in the locality, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the essential condition of Section 4(1) of the Act. From the facts noted above, this is a case where the publication is made in newspapers, which have no circulation at all in the locality. Therefore, on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act itself cannot be construed as a valid notification within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Act. In the light of the above findings, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is liable to be quashed. Even though the petitioner has not in specific terms sought for quashing of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the prayer portion, necessary pleadings have been raised by her impeaching the very notification itself apart from raising a plea for quashing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act itself in the reply-affidavit. Therefore, shorn of technicalities and having regard to the facts of the case, which undoubtedly show that the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory statutory provision of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the newspapers published in regional language having circulation in the locality, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act itself is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act are quashed. The respondents are, however, given liberty to initiate proceedings afresh at their option. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, interim order dated 21.01.2008 as extended on 04.02.2008, 21.02.2008, 29.02.2008, 07.03.2008, 14.03.2008, 10.04.2008, 28.04.2008 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.880 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.1516 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous.