IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.676 of 2008 Between: Nuthalapati Venkateswarlu & others. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.676 of 2008 Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire lands admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents, Ac.0.39 cents, Ac.0.78 cents and Ac.0.75 cents comprised in Survey Nos.168/1A, 170/1A, 170/2A and 172/3A of Gundlapalli Village, Maddipadu Mandalam, Prakasam District, in pursuance of notification dated 20-12-2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a consequential relief of setting aside notification dated 20-12-2007. The petitioners, claiming to be the owners of the abovementioned lands, questioned the validity of the impugned notification, which is issued for acquiring the petitioners’ lands for making a provision for graveyard to the displaced persons in Gundlakamma Reservoir Project. They mounted challenge to the said notification on the ground that there are Government lands available and that without making use of the same, the agricultural lands of the petitioners are sought to be acquired and they term this action of the respondents as illegal. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In this Writ Petition, a perusal of the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act shows that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is not dispensed with. The object of holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is to give an opportunity to the owners of the land, who intend to object to the proposed acquisition. Thus, the statute created an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their objections, which are legally sustainable, before the Land Acquisition Officer. In the event their objections are not properly considered and rejected, that could give them cause of action to question such an order in appropriate proceedings. The provisions of the Act empower the State to exercise the power of eminent domain and the State cannot be prevented form exercising such a power unless the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the very initiation of the proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act suffers from any of the legal defects, which would disentitle them from proceeding further. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, fairly conceded that the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act does not suffer from any such legal defects. Therefore, I am not inclined to stall further proceedings initiated by the respondents under the impugned notification. As and when the petitioners receive notice of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, they shall be free to file their objections and respondent No.2 shall consider the same, after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. In the event their objections are rejected, it shall then be open to the petitioners to question the order passed under Section 5- A of the Act by way of appropriate proceedings. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ___________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY) 21-01-2008 LUR