IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 10109 of 2008 Between: M. Rama Rao S/o Late Appala naidu R/o Embaram Village, Lakshminarasupeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The Special Deputy collector (LA), Vamsadhara Reservoir Project (BRGR), Hiramandalam at Srikakulam. 3 The Tahsildar, Hiramandalam, Srikakulam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more prticulrly one inthe nature of Writof Mandmaus declaring the Notiifation, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the first respondent in his proceedings No. 729/2008-G3, dt 18-03-2008 as arbitrary and illegal and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the RespondentS: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.NO. 10109 OF 2008 ORDER: According to the petitioner, huge extents of land were acquired by the Government for the purpose of Vamsadhara project. Thereafter some more land was required to be acquired for rehabilitation of the land owners and in that regard, again a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was issued and the same was published on 18.3.2008. The petitioner’s land was proposed to be acquired in an extent of 0-8100 hectors in S.No. 4.2 and 1.4150 hectors in S.No. 6.1 situated at Pedakota Revenue village in Lakshminarsupeta Mandal, Srikakulam district for providing rehabilitation and resettlement of the persons who were displaced by the acquisition of their lands for the purpose of Vamsadhara project. Questioning the said notification, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court by contending that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is bad, inasmuch as the Government invoked the powers under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. This Court is thoroughly satisfied that the said notification is bad in law for the reason that though acquisition of land for rehabilitation is a public purpose, but it cannot be said to be such a public purpose for which urgency clause has to be invoked. Hence without going into the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the following direction, The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act with regard to dispensation of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is hereby set aside and consequently the respondents are hereby directed to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Now that the petitioner is aware of this fact and he is directed to file his objections within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer- second respondent shall issue a notice with regard to the date of enquiry, afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate order under Section 5-A of the Act. No order as to costs. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dt.1.5.2008 KR To 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The Special Deputy collector (LA), Vamsadhara Reservoir Project (BRGR), Hiramandalam at Srikakulam. 3 The Tahsildar, Hiramandalam, Srikakulam District 4.2 CCs to GP for Land Acquisiton, 5.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}