IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.8058 of 2005 Between: Smt. Bathala Vijayamma and another. … Petitioners And: The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Gangarami Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed to quash notification and declaration dated 10-5-2004 and 7-9-2004 issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), respectively, in respect of Ac.2.08 cents of land in Survey No.76/3 of Lakshmi Naidu Kandriga, Hamlet of Chintapudi village, Pellakur Mandal, Nellore District. A perusal of the record shows that the above- mentioned extent was notified for acquisition by notification dated 10-5-2004 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is evident from the said notification that, while the said land was stated to be required for public purpose, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with by invoking the urgency provision contained under Section 17(4) of the Act. At the hearing, Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the notification is vague inasmuch as the purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired is not indicated. He further submitted that as evident from the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act it is clear that the land is sought to be acquired for providing house sites and the said purpose does not warrant invocation of urgency clause and dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. I have carefully considered these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As regards the first contention, the petitioners failed to raise a specific plea that the notification is vague. At any rate, since the declaration under Section 6 contained the purpose and in the view I am taking, I do not find any prejudice that would be likely to cause to the petitioners on account of non-mentioning of the specific purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected. As regards the second contention, I find force in the same. The purpose of proposed acquisition, viz., providing house sites for the poor, is not that urgent in nature that warrants dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. As held by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai[1], Section 5-A of the Act provides for valuable opportunity to the landowners to raise objections against the proposed acquisition. Unless the nature and purpose of acquisition is so urgent that the delay in holding enquiry cannot be brooked, there is no justification in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act. In view of the same, declaration dated 7-9-2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act is quashed. Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act to the extent it dispensed with enquiry is declared as invalid. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 17-6-2008 MNR 1) (2005) 7 SCC 627