IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12519 of 2004 Between: 1 N.Srinivasulu, s/o late N.R.Anjaneyulu, r/o Peapali Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 N.Rajeswari, w/o late N.Anjaneyulu, r/o Peapali Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 N.Basava Raju, s/o late N.Rangaiah Gupta, r/o Peapali Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 N.R.Ramesh Babu, s/o late N.Rangaiah Gupta, r/o Peapali Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 5 D.Indumathi Devi, w/o D.Krishna Murthy, r/o Peapali Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notiﬁcation dated 3-7-2004 and 7-7- 2004 issued in Vaartha daily newspaper under Section 4(1) and 5-A of Land Acquisition Act by the 2nd respondent herein invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act dispensing with Sec.5-A Enquiry, to acquire the land an extent of Ac.2.81 cents in Survey No.473/2B, 473/3A, 473/4 and 473/5 of Peapaly Village and Mandal of Kurnool District, belonging to the petitioners herein, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents herein to conduct 5-A enquiry. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.V.RAGHU VEER (not present) Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12519 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare notiﬁcation, dated 03.07.2004, and declaration, dated 07.07.2004, issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), respectively, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioners, whose lands are proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the people belonging to weaker sections, questioned the impugned proceedings solely on the ground that dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5-A by invoking the urgency provision under Section 17(4) of the Act is not warranted. The Supreme Court in a catena of judgments held that the Act being expropriatory in nature, Section 5-A of the Act provides a valuable opportunity to the land owners to ﬁle their objections to the proposed acquisition and that unless the proposed acquisition is so urgent in nature as the delay in holding the enquiry cannot be brooked, it is not reasonable to invoke the urgency provision contained in Section 17(4) of the Act. (See Munshi Singh vs. Union of India[1] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Darius Shapur Chenai[2]). 3. In the instant case, the purpose of acquisition being provision of house sites to poor people, I do not ﬁnd any urgency, which warrants denial of valuable opportunity to the land owners to raise their objections against the proposed acquisition. 4. For the aforementioned reasons, declaration, dated 07.07.2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act is quashed. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and pass appropriate orders, before seeking to proceed with the proposed acquisition. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 25th August, 2008 v v [1] AIR 1973 SC 1150 [2] (2005) 7 SCC 627