IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17771 of 2007 Between: Palleti Venkata Subba Reddy … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. Anuradha This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17771 of 2007 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare notification, dated 17.07.2007, issued by respondent No.1 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and the consequential action of respondent No.2 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land, without following the procedure contemplated under the Act, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Sections 3 of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. The petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.144/4-A of Kovur Village, Nellore District, which is notified for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections under phase II of Indiramma programme. The said land is an agricultural land and by the time of issuance of the impugned notification, the use of the land was not converted for non-agricultural purpose. While enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is pending, this writ petition is filed on the plea that the very proposal to acquire the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose without converting the land use is illegal and impermissible. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in R.Veera Raghava Prasad and others v. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another[1], wherein it was held that conversion of nature of land use is not sine qua non for acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed this position in law. Having regard to the judgment in R.Veera Raghava Prasad (supra) and the fact that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is pending, no relief at this stage can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit his objections before the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the objections from the petitioner, the respondents shall fix a date of hearing and intimate the same to him. Thereafter, appropriate orders under Section 5-A of the Act can be passed, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 23.08.2007 is vacated and WPMP.No.22787 of 2007 and WVMP.No.871 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.07.2011 ES [1] 2008 (2) ALT 136