THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.14801 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Acs.1.73 cents situated in Bhyri Revenue Village, Srikakulam Mandal. According to him, he is a small farmer and eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture in the said land. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) regarding the proposed acquisition, and without conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, enabling the petitioner to raise his objections to the proposed acquisition, the first respondent-Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam straight away issued the impugned notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act directing him to participate in award enquiry on 17.07.2006, and is proceeding to forcibly evict him from the said land. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 20.07.2006, granted interim stay. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that an extent of Ac.0.65 cents of wet land situated in Sy.No.87/2 of Bhyri Village was proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to weaker sections of society, that the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was approved by the second respondent – District Collector, Srikakulam and the same was published as per the procedure contemplated under the Act and, in view of urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, under Section 17 (4) of the Act, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 13.07.2006. It is further stated that notice under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act was issued on 22.06.2006 and published on the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat Office on 07.07.2006 and notice in Form-7, under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act, issued on 22.06.2006 was directed to be served on the petitioner through the Panchayat Secretary, Bhyri, but, the petitioner refused to receive the same, as such alternative process was adopted by affixing a copy of the notice to the door of the petitioner and sending another copy of the notice through registered post to his residential address asking him to attend the enquiry on 17.07.2006. Though the petitioner did not attend the award enquiry, he has submitted objections through his counsel. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Admittedly, the purpose for which the land of the petitioner was proposed to be acquired is to provide house sites to weaker sections and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. In identical case in Butchi Sitayamma Garu and others v. Collector, East Godavari District and another[1], where the lands were also proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections, this Court has categorically held that providing house sites to weaker sections is an on going policy of the State and it is not an overnight decision nor the economic plight of the people, a suddenly occurring emergency, and thus invocation of urgency and dispensing with the salutary process of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, in such circumstances, is arbitrary and, therefore, quashed the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. In view of the above settled position of law, the action of the respondents in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, by invoking urgency clause, for acquisition of the subject land for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and all the consequential proceedings are set aside. It is made clear that, if the land of petitioner is still required to be acquired, the respondents shall conduct necessary enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, duly issuing notice to the petitioner and considering his objections, if any raised, to the proposed acquisition, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 07.04.2010 va [1] 2008 (6) ALD (NOC 66)