Judgment : 1. The petitioners are residents of Srirampuram area in Ward No.32 of Bhimavaram Municipality, West Godavari District. They have filed this writ petition against the Notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.369, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (H1) Department, dated 27.9.2012, published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Part-I Extraordinary No.461, dated 16.8.2012, changing the land use as residential from Primary School and local commercial use, and deletion of 30’-00” & 40’-00” wide road from the Master Plan, granted in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. Respondent No.6 is the builder and developer with whom respondent Nos.3 to 5 have entered into a development agreement. Respondent Nos.7 to 16 are also residents of the same locality. They are supporting the case of the petitioners. 2. The brief facts are that, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are owners of land measuring Ac.1.163 cents, situate in Ward No.32 R.S.Nos.90/6, 90/9 and 90/10 of Bhimavaram Town. The said land was designated for primary school, local commercial use and 30’-00” – 40’-00” wide road in the Master Plan of Bhimavaram Town sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.951, M.A., dated 27.11.1987. Since the land has not been used for the notified purpose for over 25 years, respondent Nos.3 to 5 applied for change of use for residential purpose. The Municipal Council passed a resolution No.534, dated 27.01.2011 giving its approval for the change and the approval was forwarded to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. Upon the direction of the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, the Municipal Council approved the revised proposal vide its resolution No.76, dated 21.6.2011. Thereupon, the proposal was sent to the State Government for issuance of draft variation. Accordingly, the State Government vide Memo No.20274/H1/2012-2, dated 4.8.2012 notified the draft, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 15 (2)(a) of A.P. Town Planning Act, 1920 (for brevity “the Act”) and published the same as required under Clause (b) thereof in the Extraordinary issue of A.P. Gazette No.461, Part-I, dated 16.8.2012. The State Government addressed a letter dated 25.8.2012 to the Municipality with a direction to take further action as per the Act. Accordingly, the Municipality invited objections by displaying the proposal on the Notice Board on 4.8.2012 and also published the same on 15.08.2012 in the local newspaper “Andhra Bhoomi”, West Godavari District Edition. No objections whatsoever were received from the general public, including the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 16. Accordingly, the Municipality invited objections by displaying the proposal on the Notice Board on 4.8.2012 and also published the same on 15.08.2012 in the local newspaper “Andhra Bhoomi”, West Godavari District Edition. No objections whatsoever were received from the general public, including the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 16. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 paid the necessary charges as required for further course of action. Thereupon, the Government issued the impugned Notification in G.O.Ms.No.369, dated 27.9.2012 subject to certain conditions. The petitioners have challenged the said notification in this writ petition. 3. Sri K.V. Subrahmanyanarsu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned notification is not sustainable in law since there is gross violation of the provisions of Rule 72(3)(c) of the Rules framed under the Act. He would contend that any variation of the town planning scheme notified earlier under Section 14 of the Act can be made by the State Government only by following the procedure prescribed under the said Rule, besides publishing the draft notification as required under Rule 72(a) in the Gazette. It is also mandatory that the executive authority of the Municipal Council shall within the prescribed period republish it in one or more conspicuous places in or near the area included in the scheme and situated within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council. But the Municipal Council did not publish the notification, thus failed to discharge its obligation. Therefore, the impugned notification is vitiated. 4. Sri D. Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 16 would support the aforesaid contentions. The counsel would further argue that the proposal to change the land use ought not to have been entertained by the respondents 3 to 5 since the proposal was not objected by them when the master-plan was finalized in the year 1987. No survey was conducted by the Municipality nor it examined whether the change was necessary. No exercise was made by the Municipality to examine the feasibility of acquiring of the land as per the guidelines issued in Memo Nos.31738/H1/2011-2, dated 8.05.2012 and 31738/H1/ 2011-4, dated 13.07.2012. The public is using 30’-0” and 40’-0” road for ingress and egress and the deletion of the same would close their ingress and egress. The approval has been granted mechanically without application of mind, thus the same is vitiated. 5. The public is using 30’-0” and 40’-0” road for ingress and egress and the deletion of the same would close their ingress and egress. The approval has been granted mechanically without application of mind, thus the same is vitiated. 5. The 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the road as per the notification has not been formed on ground and as such it is not being used by the petitioners as ingress and egress. There are two existing roads on the Eastern and Northern sides of the subject land which are actually being used by the public including the petitioners. In addition, the respondents 3 to 5 have handed over 27 cents of land through registered gift deed dated 12.10.2012 for widening the said roads for a width of 40’-0” on the Eastern and Northern sides. The Government examined the proposal only after the Municipality expressed its inability to acquire the lands as per the guidelines even after 25 years of sanctioning the master-plan and only after being satisfied that there is no need to establish the school in the proposed site, as there are number of schools in the vicinity. Deletion of road was also thoroughly examined, and approved since the proposed road is not a continuous road and ending with the proposed site and there are existing buildings in the alignment of 30’-0” wide road and hence it is not feasible to form the road on ground. The proposal was approved only after following the due procedure. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipality, apart from the aforesaid facts, it is stated that the proposal submitted by the respondents 3 to 5 was approved by it vide proceedings C.R.No.534, dated 27.01.2011 and the same was forwarded to the Government for consideration. Revised plans duly showing the existing roads on the Northern and Eastern sides of the proposed site was also considered and approved by the Municipal Council vide orders C.R.No.76, dated 21.06.2011. The opinion of the Education Department was obtained with regard to the change of land use. The D.E.O., Bhimavaram reported that there are three elementary schools within a distance of half kilometer of 32nd Ward. The draft notification was issued vide Government Memo No.20274/H1/2012-2, dated 4.08.2012. The opinion of the Education Department was obtained with regard to the change of land use. The D.E.O., Bhimavaram reported that there are three elementary schools within a distance of half kilometer of 32nd Ward. The draft notification was issued vide Government Memo No.20274/H1/2012-2, dated 4.08.2012. The Municipality also issued notification in West Godavari District Edition of Andhra Bhoomi on 15.08.2012 notifying the public to file objections/suggestions, if any, against the proposal. No suggestions/objections were received from the public and the same was informed to the Government. Thus the notification was issued only after a thorough examination and following the due procedure. 7. Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would argue that the land has not been used for the notified purpose for more than 25 years and they are deprived of using the land though it is private property. As there was no chance of utilizing the land, respondents 3 to 5 applied for change of use. Accordingly, the proposal was approved after duly following the procedure and the recommendations of the Municipal Council. The respondents executed a gift deed dated 12.10.2012 in favour of the Municipality for widening the existing roads and also mortgaged 10% area in faovur of the Municipality for public purpose. They have also obtained technical approval dated 14.12.2012 for construction after paying the fee of Rs.70,29,450/-. The petitioners do not suffer any prejudice due to the change of land use and hence they are not entitled for the relief in the writ petition. 8. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and perused the material on record. 9. The impugned notification is challenged as vitiated mainly on the ground that the draft notification was not published in the locality, as required under Rule 72(3)(c) of the Rules. 10. A town planning scheme sanctioned under the Act may at any time be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme by the State Government under Section 15 of the Act and such power can be exercised by the Municipal Council also by entering into an agreement with the persons interested in the scheme and with the concurrence of the State Government. Before so varying, a draft of such notification shall be published in the prescribed manner inviting objections/suggestions. The procedure is prescribed in Rule 72, which is as follows: 72. Before so varying, a draft of such notification shall be published in the prescribed manner inviting objections/suggestions. The procedure is prescribed in Rule 72, which is as follows: 72. (1) The Government shall publish a draft of the notification proposed to be issued by them under sub-section (2) of Section 15 – (a) in the Fort St. George Gazette ; and (b) in case the whole or any portion of the area included in the scheme is situated in any district outside the City of Madras also in the district gazette concerned. (3) The Government shall also communicate copies of the draft to the Municipal Council as well as to every local authority within whose limits any portion of the area included in the scheme is situated. Such communication shall be made through chairman of the municipal Council or the chairman or president of the local authority concerned, as the case may be. The executive authority of the Municipal Council or of the local authority shall within ten days of his receipt of the copy of the draft republish it by pasting a copy thereof – (a) on the notice board of the office of the Municipal Council; (b) on the notice board of the office of every local authority concerned; and (c) in one or more conspicuous places in or near the area included in the scheme and situated within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Council and of the local authority concerned. 11. The aforesaid Rule provides for publication of the proposal in (i) Fort St. George Gazette; (ii) in the District Gazette if the scheme relates to the area situated out side the city of Madras; (iii) notice board of the concerned Municipal Council or the office of the local authority concerned; and (iv) in a conspicuous place in or near the area of the scheme. 12. It is impossible to follow the Rule in the aforesaid existing form. Can anybody think of publishing the scheme in the Fort St. George Gazette, which has faded into history along with the framers of the Rule, and can it be said that a scheme becomes invalid if it is not so published? Can it be conceived that publication should be made with reference to the city of Madras which has gone into oblivion for historical reasons? George Gazette, which has faded into history along with the framers of the Rule, and can it be said that a scheme becomes invalid if it is not so published? Can it be conceived that publication should be made with reference to the city of Madras which has gone into oblivion for historical reasons? Is it a rationale approach if the Rule is given a literal construction and enforce it in impossible circumstances? In the considered view of this Court, no such approach can be adopted and expect strict compliance of the Rule in the present form. It would be a sufficient compliance if the procedure in the contemporary form is followed. It would be sufficient if the publication is made in the A.P. Government Gazette in the place of St. George Gazette and other contemporary recognized modes in order to achieve the object of the Act. 13. It is an admitted fact that the draft notification was published in the A.P. Gazette, dated 16.08.2012 and also put up on the Municipal Office notice board. It is also not in dispute that the notification was published in the Andhra Bhoomi newspaper, dated 15.08.2012. It is equally true that there was no publication in or near the area of the scheme. Thus there was compliance of the Rule except in so far as publication in one of the modes i.e., publication in the local area. 14. The question, therefore, is whether the publication in the newspaper would not be a sufficient compliance and whether the final notification is vitiated because of non-publication in the local area. 15. The underlying object in causing the publicity is to see that the owner of any property or right, or a person having interest in the scheme may make representation or raise objections to the proposal. The idea behind the publication of the notice on the notice board and in the local area, is to make people aware of the intended change, because there is no likelihood of the people being aware of the publication in the Gazette. This object can be achieved not only by following exactly the same modes or by any other well recognized methods. Publication in the newspapers has become a well recognized and more efficacious method as it reaches more number of people. 16. The petitioners and respondents 7 to 16 as well, are residents of the municipality. This object can be achieved not only by following exactly the same modes or by any other well recognized methods. Publication in the newspapers has become a well recognized and more efficacious method as it reaches more number of people. 16. The petitioners and respondents 7 to 16 as well, are residents of the municipality. They have every source to access the municipal office and had every opportunity to notice the publication displayed on the notice board. It is not as if the proposal was a sudden development engineered by the land owners. The respondents 7 to 16 were aware of the efforts of the land owners for obtaining change of land use. In the affidavit filed by them there is a clear statement that they knew that on 16.12.2010 the respondents 3 to 5 had applied for change of land use proposal. Publication in the newspaper is only an additional mode of information to the public including the petitioners and respondents 7 to 16. Therefore in the facts of the case on hand, the object underlying the Rule has been achieved by publishing the proposal in the newspaper. I am, therefore, of the view that there is sufficient compliance of Rule 72 (3) (c) and in that view of the matter the final notification cannot be considered as vitiated though there was no local publication of the proposal. 17. Admittedly for over 25 years road has not been formed on ground and no school has been established, as such the said road is not providing access to the petitioners. The official respondents have clearly stated that it is not feasible to form the road on ground since the proposed road is not a continuous stretch and there are existing buildings in the alignment of the road. On the other hand, there are two existing roads on the Eastern and Northern sides, which are accessible, and in addition to the same, 27 cents of land has been taken from the respondents 3 to 5 for road widening purpose to make them a 40’-00” width road. On the other hand, there are two existing roads on the Eastern and Northern sides, which are accessible, and in addition to the same, 27 cents of land has been taken from the respondents 3 to 5 for road widening purpose to make them a 40’-00” width road. Further more, confirmation has been obtained by the municipality with regard to the requirement of the subject land for the purpose of school, through the concerned D.E.O., who reported that there are three elementary schools within a distance of half kilometer from the 32ward which shows that the subject land is not required for the said purpose. Hence, the petitioners have no real grievance against change. 18. The respondents 3 to 5 have been deprived of their property for over 25 years by virtue of the master-plan. They neither used the land for their purpose nor the land was acquired by the municipal authorities as per law. Even for utilizing the land for the notified purpose, the same cannot be done without acquiring the land. The municipality expressed its inability to acquire the land. It is well settled that nobody shall be deprived of the property except in accordance with law and if respondents 3 to 5 are not permitted to enjoy their land, it would amount to depriving their rights to their property. 19. The contention of the petitioners that efforts were not made by the Municipality to acquire the land and no exercise was made to examine whether the change of land use was necessary has no basis. The official respondents have clearly stated that the matter was thoroughly examined with reference to the ground realities. Similarly, there is no substance in the contention that respondents 3 to 5 are not entitled to seek for the change as they did not object when the initial proposal was approved in the year 1987. The respondents 3 to 5 cannot be expected to lose their land except as provided by law and they sought for the change only as permissible under law. 20. In Syed Hasan Rasul Numa and others v. Union of India and others (1991) 1 SCC 401 )relied upon by the petitioners, notice was required to be published at least by two methods out of the three i.e., by affixing copies in conspicuous place in the locality, beat of drum, and advertisement in local newspapers. 20. In Syed Hasan Rasul Numa and others v. Union of India and others (1991) 1 SCC 401 )relied upon by the petitioners, notice was required to be published at least by two methods out of the three i.e., by affixing copies in conspicuous place in the locality, beat of drum, and advertisement in local newspapers. But the notice was published only by publication in the newspaper. It was held that provisions of the Act were not complied with since the appellant therein had no knowledge of the publication. In Gunda Vishvanadham v. Government of A.P., and others ( 2008 (3) ALD 367 ), none of the modes i.e., publication in the notice board and local publication, was followed. In my view the said cases cannot be applied to the case on hand since there is publication in the newspapers as a substituted service to publication in the local area in addition to the publication in the Gazette and the notice board. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 22. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.51534 of 2012 and W.V.M.P.Nos.307, 313 and 1540 of 2013 are dismissed as unnecessary.