IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.91, 90, 1273, 1274, 2172, 2217 of 2008 & 25292 of 2007 Common Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This batch of Writ Petitions raise common issues of fact and law. Therefore, they are being heard and disposed of by this Common Order. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners, who are owners of different extents of lands situated in Mangalpalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, assailed the validity of notification No.G1/2418/2006, dated 16-11-2006, and declaration, dated 13-11-2007, issued under Sections 4 (1) and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), by respondent No.1- District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. In the impugned notification and the declaration, the purpose of the proposed acquisition was stated to be “for construction of houses to the general public by the A.P.Housing Board.” At the hearing, it is submitted by Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions, that this Court quashed a similar notification in a judgment reported in D.Ramadevi and others vs. District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, and others[1], and held that the proposed acquisition for an identical purpose viz., construction of houses by the Housing Board and selling them to general public was not for public purpose. Accordingly, while allowing the said Writ Petition and quashing the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, this Court gave liberty to the respondent therein to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law and in the light of the findings rendered in the said judgment. This position is conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri D.Ranganatha Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.Housing Board, representing respondent No.3. Following the said judgment, these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned notifications and declarations are quashed with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the judgment cited supra. As a sequel, WVMP.No.2206 of 2008 & WPMP.No.98 of 2008, WPMP.No.97 of 2008, WVMP.No.2221 of 2008 & WPMP.No.1524 of 2008, WVMP.No.2203 of 2008 & WPMP.No.1525 of 2008, WVMP.No.2202 of 2008 & WPMP.No.2790 of 2008, WVMP.No.2220 of 2008 & WPMP.No.2862 of 2008, WVMP.No.2231 of 2008 & WPMP.No.32979 of 2007 in W.P.Nos.91, 90, 1273, 1274, 2172, 2217 of 2008 and 25292 of 2007 respectively are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 22nd June, 2011 lur [1] AIR 2009 Andhra Pradesh 15