THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.10630 and 12254 of 2006 Dated: 01.04.2011 Between: Dwarampudi Navyalaxmi .. Petitioner And The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.10630 and 12254 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: As the challenge in these writ petitions is to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners (Ac.0.10 cents out of Survey No.61/6B and Ac.0.11 cents out of Acs.1.59 cents in Survey No.123/B) situated at Yedurupakasivaru Savaram Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District in W.P.Nos.10630 and 12254 of 2006 respectively, it is necessary to dispose of the matters under common order. The challenge is sought to be sustained on two grounds: that there is no urgency for acquisition of the land for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections and that when the land belonging to Sri Bheemeswara Swamy Temple admeasuring Acs.3.48 cents is also proposed for acquisition, the acquisition of small extents belonging to the petitioners is not necessary. The power of the State to acquire the land is in the realm of doctrine of eminent domain. When, after necessary survey and feasible study, the State decided to acquire land admeasuring Ac.3.69 cents under the impugned notification including the land belonging to the petitioners as well as the temple, the matter must rest there. The issue whether the land of the temple would be adequate to meet the demand for distribution of house sites is not justiciable. There is no principle of law which prohibits the State from acquiring more land than required for the public purpose, which now exists. Therefore, the submission of the petitioners must fail. Whether the impugned notification is not unsustainable, because in exercise of powers under Section 17(4) of the Act, the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been dispensed with? The petitioners would contend that there is no urgency for acquiring the land for providing house sites and that the Court can always judicially review the exercise of power by the District Collector under Section 17(4) of the Act. The issue is no more in res integra. I n S.Yedukondalu v. District Collector, West Godavari District[1], this Court, inter alia, considered the question whether urgency can be presumed when the land acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections. Referring to Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2], Union of India v. Praveen Gupta[3], Bhagat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[4] and other binding precedents, this Court held that as long as the need for providing house sites to weaker sections is not fulfilled, the urgency continues to subsist. The relevant observations are as follows. The law may, therefore, be taken as well settled that when the State acquires the private land in exercise of its power of eminent domain for providing house sites/houses to persons belonging to weaker sections, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes in discharge of its constitutional obligation to provide decent housing, it can always assume that there is urgency. Housing is a basic need, which does not brook any delay. Even if there is some delay due to administrative procedures in initiating proposals, the same does not in any manner dilute the principle that as long as the need for housing remains, urgent action is required by the State. It is the constitutional mandate as well as constitutional duty. The counsel for the petitioners lastly would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition for the last four years, the need for acquiring the land may not be existing. This issue cannot be considered by this Court. Ultimately, it is for the respondents to take appropriate decision in this regard. Even otherwise, when once possession is taken no material is placed before this Court by the petitioners that those persons belonging to weaker sections for whom the land was proposed to acquire have houses of their own. The submission is therefore cannot be countenanced. The writ petitions, with the above observations, are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.04.2011 KH [1] 2006 (5) ALT 818 [2] (1996) 2 SCC 549 [3] (1997) 9 SCC 78 [4] (1999) 2 SCC 384