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 : 6603 of 2008 Between: 1 Jasti Veeramma W/o Subba Rao 2 Jasti Durga Prasad S/o Subba rao 3 Jasti Satyanarayana S/o Subba Rao 4 Jasti Jaya Shankar S/o Subba rao 5 Miriyala Annapurna W/o Kesari Kumar 6 Mittapally Aruna W/o Trinadh 7 Mittapally Prameela W/o Ramesh 8 Mittapally GuravammaW/o Ramalingaiah 9 Ambate Venkateshwarlu S/o Muthaiah 10 bantu laxmamma W/o Eedaiah 11 Kisari Rambabu S/o Saidaiah 12 Kisari Srinivas S/o Saidaiah 13 Kisari laxminarayana S/o Saidaiah 14 Kisari Umamaheshwar Rao S/o Saidaiah all are R/o Near Post Office, Main Road, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Nalgonda District. 3 Land acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 4 Andhra Pradesh Housing Board rep by its Vice Chairman & housing Commissioner, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuance of impugned notification U/s. 491) and 6 of the land Acquisition Act in G1/6995/2005, dated 10-5-2006 and issuance of notice by the 3rd respondent in E1/1831/2005, dated 25-6-2006 as illegal, arbitrary etc. and set a side the same and to pass appropriate orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVASA RAO DUGGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioners, whose lands are acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), approached this Court and filed the present writ petition questioning the said notification. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. The 2nd respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 10.5.2006 for acquiring the lands of the petitioners for construction of houses. It is also made clear that the said lands are acquired invoking urgency clause dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act. The action of the authorities so far is justified. But, however, on the very same day i.e., on 10.5.2006 they also issued draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act in Andhra Pradesh State Gazette Extraordinary No.107, Nalgonda. It is clear that the said declaration was published on 10.5.2006 itself. Now the law on this aspect is very clear that the notification under Section 4(1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act shall not simultaneously be published. So far as invocation of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act is concerned, in my considered view, it is not required in this case as the land, in question, is required for construction of second phase of housing colony. In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the draft declaration dt.10.5.2006 is without jurisdiction and the same is to be set aside. Even if I direct the authorities for setting aside the second clause of the said 4(1) notification, it serves no purpose. Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act deals with declaration of land required for public purpose. But, according to second proviso, which was inserted by way of Amendment Act No.68 of 1984, no declaration shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. As 4(1) notification is 10.5.2006 and the time provided for under the said proviso to Section 6 is only one year and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act shall be published within one year from the date of said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dt.10.5.2006 and this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said two notifications are bad in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 4(1) notification and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are hereby set aside. However, if the Government so chooses, it may do so by issuing fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. 1.5.2008 kpr