IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3602 of 2008 Between: 1 P. Satyanarayana Sarma S/o.Late Yagneswara Sastry, Hindu R/o. Tungatampara Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2 P.V.. Sastry S/o. Late P.V.S.N. Sarma, Hindu Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. 3 P. Radhakrishna S/o. Late Sri Rama Murthy, Hindu R/o. Tungatampara Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 4 Smt. P.S. Rajeswari W/o.Late Brhmanandam, Hindu R/o. Tungatampara Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5 P.V. Ramana Murthy S/o. Late Yagneswara Sastry, Hindu R/o. Tungatampara Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6 P. Krishna Babu S/o. Late Yagneswara Sastry, Hindu R/o. Tungatampara Village, Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Srikakulam District, at Srikakulam 3 Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Uni-IV, Hiramandalam @ Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M. Srinivas for Sri CH.Dhanamjaya Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3602 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to invalidate notification dated 24.01.2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the extent of the lands belonging to the petitioners comprised in various survey numbers of Kondaragolu Village of Hiramandalam Mandal, Srikakulam District. Heard Sri M. Srinivas representing Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents committed a patent illegality in invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act by dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. He submitted that the purpose of acquisition, namely, construction of a Diversion Road for Vamsadhara Project under Phase-2, Stage-2 is not so urgent, warranting dispensing with of enquiry. Having heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader, I am of the considered view that the respondents are not justified in invoking the urgency clause. As held by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the recent of which is Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chennai[1], Section 5A of the Act provides a valuable opportunity to the land owners to raise their objections against the proposed acquisition. Unless the situation is so urgent that it does not brook the delay of holding of enquiry, the respondents cannot invoke the urgency clause and dispense with the enquiry. In my considered view, the purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired is not so urgent as not to wait for four to six weeks required for holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. The part of the impugned notification by which enquiry is dispensed with is set aside. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4699 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.02.2008 ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies [1] AIR 2005 SC 3520