ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Gazette Notification No. G1/2376/2004, dated 04-02-2005 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire Acs.50.06 guntas of land in Survey No. 21, 22 and 23 of Raviryala Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District including the Award bearing No. C/165/2005, dated 25.10.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law. 2. It is the case of petitioners that subject land was acquired for expansion of Hardware Park proposed by the then A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, i.e. the 5th respondent, presently Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and that petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are protected tenants and supported by 38-E certificates issued under the provisions of the A.P (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and petitioners 5 to 17 are purchasers of land from them under registered sale deeds and their names were mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to them under the provisions of the A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. It is also their case, before ordering mutation and issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the authorities concerned have made discrete enquiry and then only issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is also their case that they are all small farmers and except this small extent, they do not have any other land for their livelihood and except cultivation, they do not know the other source of living being illiterates. It is also the specific case of petitioners that while giving the impugned Notification, the name of Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple was shown as pattadar and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5 (A) invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. The so-called acquisition through the Notification and dispensing with enquiry under Section 5 (A) is contrary to the very scheme of the Act. It is further alleged that 4(1) notification is required to be published in two popular newspapers having wide circulation, but, it was published only in one newspaper Varthaman which is not a newspaper known to public and it was not published in any other newspaper as required under law. It is further alleged that 4(1) notification is required to be published in two popular newspapers having wide circulation, but, it was published only in one newspaper Varthaman which is not a newspaper known to public and it was not published in any other newspaper as required under law. It is contended that for the purpose of establishing Hardware park, hundreds of acres of land was acquired by the State falling in different villages and that land owners, who are similarly situated, filed Writ Petition No. 19579 of 2002 questioning the Notification and declaration under Section 6. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 04.11.2004 following the direction given in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2002, dated 25.04.2003 whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the authorities concerned to issue notice under section 5 (A) to conduct an enquiry and against the said order, when Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch was filed, the same was dismissed on 17.10.2005 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge; therefore, without conducting an enquiry under Section 5 (A), proceeding further and passing an Award is illegal and arbitrary. It is also stated that they filed Writ Petition No. 17763 of 2005 questioning the action of authorities invoking urgency clause by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act and the said Writ petition was directly listed before the Hon’ble Division Bench along with other connected Writ Petitions and all of them were dismissed on 26.10.2005 with the following order: “In view of the Judgment of this court in WA. No. 294/2005 and batch, dated 17.10.2005 these writ petitions shall also stand dismissed.” It is the specific case of petitioners that they are in possession of subject land and that they were not dispossessed by following the provisions of Land Acquisition Act in the name of acquiring land and compensation was also not paid to them. Petitioners asserted at various places of writ affidavit that possession was not taken from them having invoked urgency clause. 3. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition filed counter on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3. He asserted that they have followed the procedure by publishing 4(1) notification in Varthaman (Telugu) and News Boom (English). Petitioners asserted at various places of writ affidavit that possession was not taken from them having invoked urgency clause. 3. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition filed counter on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3. He asserted that they have followed the procedure by publishing 4(1) notification in Varthaman (Telugu) and News Boom (English). Similarly, Section 6 declaration in Vision Andhra (Telugu), Indian Express (English) and subsequently notices under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of Land Acquisition Act have been issued to all the persons interested for filing their objections, fixing the date of hearing as 31.03.2005 and also another notice dated 24.06.2005 while fixing date of hearing as 11.07.2005. On 11.07.2005, all the persons interested attended the award enquiry and filed their respective claims. That being the position, petitioners filed Writ Petitions No. 17763 to 17766 of 2005 challenging the draft declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act by dispensing with 5(A) enquiry and the said Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Divisional Bench on 26.10.2005 and that after completion of statutory formalities, Award under Section 11 (1) was passed on 25.10.2005 and possession of land was handed over to the department on 09.11.2005. However, because of the title dispute, matter was referred to the District Court under Section 30 by depositing compensation under Section 31 and names of all the petitioners were included in the said reference and that petitioners, without approaching the District Court, R.R. District where reference under section 30 is pending, approached this Court and field the present Writ Petition. It is also the case of Land Acquisition Collector that as per revenue records for 2003 and 2004, lands were classified as Endowment lands and pattadar passbooks of petitioner were cancelled by the Joint Collector on 26.08.2003 on the ground that land belongs to Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy temple. The Division Bench disposed of several Writ Petitions filed by land owners challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated for IT park and related projects in the Villages of Gopannapally and Vattinagulapally following the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch, dated 17.10.2005. The Division Bench disposed of several Writ Petitions filed by land owners challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated for IT park and related projects in the Villages of Gopannapally and Vattinagulapally following the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch, dated 17.10.2005. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing (13) SLPs and the Supreme Court in CA No. 1781 of 2008 arising out of SLP No. 24715 of 2005 and batch dated 04.03.2008 restored the matter and directed the Division Bench for fresh disposal, therefore, the contention of petitioners that in view of dismissal of Writ Appeal, order in Writ Petition was confirmed, is incorrect. It is also stated that while dismissing Writ Petition No. 17763 of 2005 filed by petitioners, this Court did not give any direction to respondent for conducting 5(A) enquiry, therefore, the contention of petitioners that 5 (A) enquiry was conducted by the authorities and entire acquisition proceedings are illegal is not tenable. It is also asserted that in view of the invocation of urgency clause, conducting enquiry under Section 5 (A) does not arise and as Writ Petition No. 17763 of 2005 filed by petitioners was dismissed without any direction, there is no need to conduct any enquiry under Section 5 (A). It is the assertion of Land Acquisition Officer in Para Nos. 11, 13 and 15 that they handed over possession to the 5th respondent on 09.11.2005. 4. The 5 th respondent filed its counter through Manager (Law). It is their case that Writ Petition does not disclose any substance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and all the averments made therein are denied except to the extent they specifically admitted. 4. The 5 th respondent filed its counter through Manager (Law). It is their case that Writ Petition does not disclose any substance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and all the averments made therein are denied except to the extent they specifically admitted. It is asserted that they sent requisition to acquire the subject land which forms part and parcel of total land in an extent of Acs.810.14 guntas for establishment of Hardware Park expansion by AP AIIC and that land was acquired by following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and possession was delivered to them on 09.11.2005 and the award was passed on 25.10.2005 and that Land Acquisition Officer, while passing the Award, have considered the case of petitioners and that land in question belongs to Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy Temple and the said lands were donated as grant i.e. Mashrutul-Khidmath Inam to temple and therefore, the claim of petitioners is imaginary and that land was acquired after thoroughly enquiring into the matter. 5. Heard Sri M. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSIIC. 6. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and after perused the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether State has followed meticulously the procedure for publication of notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 2. Whether enquiry under Section 5-A is not necessary as contended by the 3 rd respondent Land Acquisition Collector? 3. Whether the land had vested in the State by taking actual physical possession pursuant to Section 4 (1) notification? 4. Whether the notification issued under Sec. 4 (1) including the award is liable to be set aside 7. POINT No.1: Petitioners contended that the 3 rd respondent had not followed the procedure in publishing the notification in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality and one should be in regional language. What law envisaged with regard to publication of notification is to bring it to the notice of affected parties about the intention of the State to acquire their land for public purpose. Therefore, publication in two daily newspapers is not an empty formality. The compulsory acquisition is one step defeating the property rights of the individual. What law envisaged with regard to publication of notification is to bring it to the notice of affected parties about the intention of the State to acquire their land for public purpose. Therefore, publication in two daily newspapers is not an empty formality. The compulsory acquisition is one step defeating the property rights of the individual. Therefore, when such a valuable right of individuals is sought to be taken away by the State, they cannot behave and act in a mechanical and arbitrary way causing injustice to the land owners. 8. It is settled law that the District Collector shall cause publication of notification in the District Gazette as well as in two newspapers; one in vernacular language having circulation in the locality means, publication in newspapers having wide circulation. In this case, admittedly, the notification under Section 4(1) was published in Telugu newspaper ‘Varthaman’ and English newspaper ‘News Bhoom’. It is the specific case of petitioners that ‘Varthman’ and ‘News Bhoom’ papers are not even heard and known to public as newspapers circulating in the locality and mere publication in two newspapers is not sufficient and the said newspapers should have some reasonable circulation in the locality. The 3rd respondent could not establish that these two newspapers are having some circulation in the locality. In Telugu, newspapers like Eenadu, Andhra Jyothi, Vaartha, Andhra Prabha, etcetera, have wide circulation and known to one and all; ‘Varthaman’ is not even known to public. In English, newspapers like Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, Times of India have wide circulation. ‘News Bhoom’ is not known to anyone. When public is not even known and heard about the said news papers, there is no possibility of having reasonable circulation. The 3 rd respondent except saying that they published in ‘Varthaman’ and ‘News Bhoom’, could not assert and establish these papers have at least some reasonable circulation in the locality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition CMDA Vs. The 3 rd respondent except saying that they published in ‘Varthaman’ and ‘News Bhoom’, could not assert and establish these papers have at least some reasonable circulation in the locality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition CMDA Vs. Siva Prakasam , [ 2011(1) SCC 330 ] while dealing with the aspect of publication of notification under Section 4(1), held that if there is failure to publish in two daily newspaper or if publication is in two newspapers that have no circulation at all in the locality, without anything more, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, on the ground of non-compliance with essential condition of Section 4(1). In this case, petitioners asserted that these publications were made in the newspapers which are not even known to them as well as public and when there are other proper newspapers which are widely in circulation, publication made in these two newspapers is a deliberate mischief on the part of respondents and this aspect could not be answered by them. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the said newspapers deliberately and it did not meet the requirement. Therefore, this court holds that very publication of notification under section 4 (1) was made in violation and spirit of the Act, therefore, the said publication is bad in law. 9. POINT No.2: In this case, it is clear from the counter filed by the 5 th respondent that large extent of Acs. 810.14 guntas of land was acquired for the purpose of establishment of Hardware Park. In the counter filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, it is mentioned in Para No. 8 that “Hon’ble Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court had disposed of several writ petitions filed by the owners challenging the LA proceedings initiated for IT Park and other related projects in the villages of Gopannapally and Vattinagulapally following the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch, dated 17.10.2005. Therefore, it is clear for the sake of the 5th respondent, large extents of lands situated in the villages of Gopannapally, Vattinagulapally and Raviryala were acquired through different notifications. Therefore, it is clear for the sake of the 5th respondent, large extents of lands situated in the villages of Gopannapally, Vattinagulapally and Raviryala were acquired through different notifications. The owners of lands have filed various writ petitions and a learned Single Judge already passed order in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2002, dated 25.04.2003 and also in Writ Petition No. 19579 of 2002, dated 04.11.2004 directing respondents to issue notice for an enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Act. The said order was challenged in Writ Appeal Nos. 294, 1139, 1142 and 1150 of 2005, wherein the Division Bench by order dated 07.10.2005 confirmed the order of learned Single Judge. Subsequently, when similar Writ Petitions were filed, including Writ Petition No. 17763 of 2005 by petitioners, they were directly listed before the Division Bench which passed the order as under: “ In view of the judgment of this court in WA. No. 294/2005 and batch, dated 17.10.2005, these writ petitions also stand dismissed no order as to costs.” In fact, in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch, the order of the learned Single Judge directing the authorities to issue notice and conduct an enquiry under section 5 (A) of the LA Act was upheld. When Writ Petition No. 10879 of 2005 and batch was disposed of in view of the order in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005, it means respondents have to follow the orders of the learned Single Judge to conduct enquiry under section 5 (A). Simply, if the Division Bench dismissed Writ Petitions No. 10879 of 2005 and batch, then it is a different situation, but, in this case, the Hon’ble Division Bench specifically observed, in view of the Judgment in Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch, these Writ Petitions were also dismissed. Therefore, the stand of respondents that Writ Petition filed by petitioners was dismissed and there is no need to go for an enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Act is baseless. Under these circumstances, the understanding of Respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the order in Writ Petition No. 10879 of 2005 and batch, dated 26.10.2005 is incorrect and they have not conducted an enquiry under Section 5 (A). Under these circumstances, the understanding of Respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the order in Writ Petition No. 10879 of 2005 and batch, dated 26.10.2005 is incorrect and they have not conducted an enquiry under Section 5 (A). The conduct of enquiry as required under Section 5 (A) is mandatory and any such violation vitiates the whole acquisition proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Singh v State of UP., 2010(11)SCC 242 following the law laid down in Babu Ram v State of Haryana , [ (2009) 10 SCC 115 ] . Therefore, wrongly understanding the order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 10879 of 2005 and batch, dated 26.10.2005, not conducting 5(A) enquiry is bad in law and therefore, Notification issued under Section 4 (1) cannot be sustained in Law. 10. POINT No.3: Petitioners asserted that they are in possession and had not lost the same by virtue of the notification impugned in the Writ Petition. Respondents 1 to 3 stated that they delivered possession to the 5 th respondent on 09-11-2005, but they are unable to say on which date they have taken possession from petitioners. Without the land actually taking possession, the question of vesting with the State does not arise. When the land has not vested as per law, the State will not be in a position to deliver the same to the beneficiary. In Shakuntala Yadav v. State of Haryana , [ (2016) 13 SCC 233 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that unless and until possession is taken in accordance with law, possession cannot be delivered to the beneficiary for whom the land acquisition proceedings took place. In another judgment between Prahlad Singh v Union of India, 2011(5) SCC 386 , the Apex Court held that without taking actual physical possession, land shall not vest in the State. The Larger Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in Indoor Development Authority v Manohar Lal , [ 2020 (8) SCC 129 ] , it was held that the mode of taking possession under 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24 (2) is drawing inquest report / memorandum. Therefore, there must be some panchanama or inquest report to believe that possession was taken by the State from the farmers. Therefore, there must be some panchanama or inquest report to believe that possession was taken by the State from the farmers. In this case, Respondents 1 to 3, except saying that they delivered possession to the 5 th respondent through panchnama dated 09-11-2005, are unable to place any evidence in spite of serious contest denying taking of possession by the State. In view of the controversy with regard to taking of possession, this Court has called for a status report by appointing Advocate Commissioners, who reported that on the date of inspection, they found vegetables grown by petitioners and existence of cattle and cattle sheds with bore-well and electricity Connections. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that respondents have not taken possession of land from petitioners and land did not vest in the State to deliver possession to the 5th respondent and the plea of possession delivered to the 5th respondent cannot be believed, and the possession of land remained with petitioners. 11. Upon perusal of the entire record and after noticing the stand in the counters filed by respondents, it is evident that Acs. 810.14 guntas were sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishing hardware park and in that connection, respondent authorities have not conducted themselves properly in following the due procedure in publication of notification and taking delivery of possession. Hence, this Court finds fault with respondents in making paper publication as well as taking actual physical possession. 12. POINT No.4 : In view of the findings given in the above paragraphs, the notification published in AP Gazette No. G1/2376/2004, dated: 04-02-2005 and the Award bearing No. C/165/2005, dated 25.10.2005 cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, the notification as well as the Award are liable to be set-aside. 13. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting aside the Notification published in Gazette dated 04.02.2005 and the Award dated 25.10.2005 in respect of the land in an extent of Acs.50.06 guntas in Survey Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of Raviryala Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. No costs. 14. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.