IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13656 of 2002 Between: Annapareddy Koteswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Swamy. Avanigadda, Krishna. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., Rep. Secretary. Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Bandar, Krishna. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in seeking to dispossess him from his land of an extent of Ac.1.86 cents in S.Nos.24/5 and 24/6, Avanigadda, Krishna District without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary etc., while declaring the Notification issued by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.G4. 1905/2000 dated 26/06/2000 U/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the Krishna District Gazette Extraordinary issue No.26/2000 dated 13/07/2000 as also the Notification U/s.6 of the L.A.Act in Rc.No.G4.1905/2000 dated 26/06/2000 and published in the Krishna District Gazette Extraordinary issue No. 27/2000 dated 16/07/2000 as illegal, arbitrary and lapsed U/s. 11A of the Land Acquisition Act and grant such other just and consequential relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 13656 of 2005 06-03-2009 Oral Order: The petitioner assails the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State for acquiring an extent of Ac.01-06 cents in survey nos. 24/5 and 24/6, Avanigadda, Krishna District, by the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) published in the Krishna District Gazette Extraordinary dated 13-07-2000, followed by a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and published in the Gazette on 16-07-2000. After approval by the 2nd respondent, District Collector, Krishna District of the draft notification, the same was published in the District Gazette on 13-07-2000. The draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act did not invoke the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act, nor dispense with the salutary process of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. None the less the 2nd respondent proceeded to approve draft declaration on 26-06-2000 and got it published in the District Gazette on 16-07-2000. On 26-07-2002 this Court after admitting the writ petition, by an interim order directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land for a period of three weeks and thereafter by the order dated 25-09-2002 while extending the interim order dated 26-07-2002 until further orders, clarified that it was open to the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed with the award enquiry and finalize the same, but not to pronounce the award. As on date neither was possession taken of the land nor an award passed despite a near simultaneous publication of the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on 13-07-2000 and 16-07-2000 respectively. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the land was proposed for providing house sites to weaker sections during 1999 proposals were made to the petitioner for acquisition. The writ petitioner accorded consent for acquisition of his land by a letter of consent dated 29-07-1999 subscribed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 50-00. The 3rd respondent however fails to mention that the consent given by the petitioner was for acquiring his land at the rate of Rs.3,00,000-00 per acre. It is distressing to note that there is suppression of this material fact in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. If the State was unwilling to acquire the land for Rs.3,00,000-00 as proposed by the petitioner, there cannot be said to have been a consent by the petitioner and there could be no consent award on that basis. Even so it is open to the State to acquire the land by exercising the power of eminent domain by resorting to the process commencing with the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. This is what the State did. However, while failing to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the respondents did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act, but proceeded post haste to publish the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16-07-2000. This is a fatal infirmity and violation of the provisions of the Act. The respondents cannot dispense with the mandatory requirement of an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act particularly when they have not invoked urgency. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act approved by the 2nd respondent on 26-06-2000 and published in the District Gazette on 16-07-2000 and in the daily press on 26-08-2000 is therefore unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. As the further proceedings by way of dispossession of the petitioner have been stayed by the initial order dated 26-07-2002, which has been extended until further orders on 25-09-2002, the limitation for issuing the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act is interrupted and therefore if it would be legitimate to the respondents, they may issue the draft declaration within the period of limitation after excluding the period covered by the interim stay i.e., from 26-07-2002 till the date of disposal of this writ petition. On the aforesaid analysis, while quashing the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act published in the Gazette on 16-07-2000, the respondents are granted liberty to pursue the process of acquisition by issuing a notice to the petitioner in Form-III soliciting objections under Section 5- A of the Act; by considering his objections submitted within the time stipulated in the notice; by passing an order dealing with the objections and communicating the decision to the petitioner and thereafter taking further proceedings in accordance with the decision so arrived at by the competent authority under Section 5-A of the Act. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 06-03-2009 Pvks