IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERBAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13035 of 2006 Between: Sunkari Kamala …Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., Rep. by Secretary to Govt., Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.13035 of 2006 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the notification vide Roc.No.F5/S.W/236/06 dated 03.06.2006 issued by the second respondent proposing to acquire the petitioner’s lands in an extent of Acs.3.79 cents covered by Survey No.536/1 and 536/2 of Samisragudem Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Articles 68 and 84 of the Indian Constitution and against the principles of natural justice and consequently sought a direction to the respondent authorities not to acquire the petitioner’s lands. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of dry land to an extent of Acs.3.79 cents covered by Survey No.536/1 and 536/2 of Samisragudem Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District and she had been raising wet crops like Sugarcane and Paddy with rainwater. On 10.06.2006, the 2nd respondent published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (‘the Act’, for brevity) vide Roc.No.F5/S.W/236/06, dated 03.06.2006, in ‘Andhra Jyothi’ daily newspaper, proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner along with some other lands for allotment of house sites to the economically backward people in the village and invoked urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 27.06.2006 contending that the substance of notification was not published in the locality and there are no reasons for the respondents to invoke urgency clause dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act in respect of the her land, inasmuch as there are other alternative and suitable lands available for allotment of house sites to the weaker section people. Hence, she prays this Court to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. This Court, by an interim order dated 29.06.2006 in W.P.M.P.No.16021 of 2006, directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her lands to an extent of Acs.3.78 cents in Survey No.536/1 and 536/2 of Samisragudem Village. The case of the respondents, as can be seen from the counter filed by fourth respondent, is that an extent of Acs.11.88 cents under R.S.Nos.536/1,2,3,4, 541/1A, 2A of Samisragudem Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District belonging to one Sunkari Kamala, wife of Narasimham and four others is sought to acquire for providing house sites to the weaker section people under ‘Indiramma programme’ and, as such, draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act acquiring the lands has been published in the District Gazette vide No.156, dated 09.06.2006, and also published in daily newspapers. At that stage, the petitioner filed present writ petition and obtained interim direction from this Court, as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is deprived of her legitimate right of filing objections, inasmuch as, neither the substance of notification dated 03.06.2006 was published in the locality, nor any reasons are shown for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act invoking urgency clause in respect of the petitioner’s land, more particularly, when other alternative suitable lands other than the petitioner’s land is available for allotment of house sites to the weaker section people. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that no legal or sustainable grounds are raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, except stating that the substance of notification was not published in the locality for which, no limitation is prescribed. He also submitted that pursuant to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the daily newspapers, the petitioner filed instant writ petition and obtained interim direction, as stated above and, therefore, further proceedings could not take place. He prays this Court that, since the petitioner is in the possession of the said property, the respondents be permitted to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, to which, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of upholding the notification vide Roc.No.F5/S.W/236/06, dated 03.06.2006, issued by the second respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act and liberty is granted to the respondents to go ahead with the proceedings dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, in accordance with law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH December 22, 2009 BVV