IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:4434 of 2006 Date:21.10.2010 Between: Penugonda Venkata Ratnam and 2 others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of AP., rep. By its Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:4434 of 2006 ORDER: In this writ petition the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, the Act), for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners among others, is the subject matter under challenge. The petitioners, 3 in number, claim to own Ac.2.00, Ac.0.74 cents and Ac.0.79 cents respectively in Survey No.74/2D, 74/2C2, 74/2B3 respectively. The said lands are said to be double crop wet lands and to have been in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. It is the petitioners’ case that acquisition of their lands, for construction of houses for weaker sections in Palakol Municipality, under the Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme, is illegal in as much as, the then Chief Minister had laid a foundation stone on 03.07.2005 in Sy.No.324 of Palakol town for construction of houses under the Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme and, since the land in Sy.No.324 of Palakol was initially proposed for construction of houses for weaker sections, the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire lands belonging to the petitioners in other survey numbers, for the very same purpose, is illegal. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, since the respondents had invoked the urgency clause, the petitioners had been denied the opportunity of putting forth their contentions in the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer explaining the circumstances under which the land identified earlier was given a go-bye, and the petitioners’ land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose. It is their case that no other land is available, which is suitable for construction of houses for weaker sections, and it is in such circumstances that the petitioners’ land was sought to be acquired. This Court, by order in W.P.M.P.No.5571 of 2006 in W.P.No.4434 of 2006 dated 07.03.2006, granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Section 4(1) notification dated 25.02.2006. Though a vacate stay petition was filed this Court, by order dated 03.09.2010, directed that the vacate stay petition be listed along with the writ petition. The urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act is invoked, and the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is dispensed with, only in cases of real urgency and not as a matter of course. The opportunity available to a person, whose land is acquired, under Section 5A of the Act has been held to be a valuable right by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chennai and others[1]. The very fact that acquisition proceedings are pending for the past more than four and half years would justify an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act being held wherein all the contentions, raised by the petitioners herein, can be gone into. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to put the petitioners on notice, give them an opportunity of being heard under Section 5A of the Act and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:21.10.2010. Gk. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:4434 of 2006 Date:21.10.2010 Gk [1] (2005) 7 SCC 627