THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI W.P.M.P.No.17439 of 2008 &s WRIT PETITION No.21132 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of Ac.5.45 cents of land situated in Korada village, Hira Mandalam, Srikakulam District. The said land is sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") for purpose of construction of Hiramandalam Reservioir under Vamsadhara Project, Phase II of Stage II. Notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 23.12.2005 followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners ﬁled this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. This Court while directing Rule nisi by order dated 3.11.2006 granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. During pendency of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners made a representation for ﬁxation of the market value of the land acquired on yardage basis with reference to registration statistics. On the basis of the said representation made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent Government of Andhra Pradesh has called for a report from the District Collector, Srikakulam, and in turn, the District Collector has called for a report from the 3rd respondent/Land Acquisition Oﬃcer. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer submitted a report in Rc.No.20/2005 C dated .3.2008 requesting the District Collector to address the Government to seek a clariﬁcation whether to adopt yardage/acreage basis while determining the market value of the land. The said report of the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer was forwarded to the 1st respondent vide proceedings of the District Collector, Srikakulam, dated 3.04.2008. Having regard to the said subsequent events, the writ petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.17439 of 2008 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the report of the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though in the main writ petition the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act itself is challenged, the petitioners are not pressing the said relief having regard to the nature of the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired and that the respondents may be directed to take expeditious steps for ﬁxing the market value of the land as per the report of the Land Acquisition Officer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the report of the Land Acquisition Officer in Rc.No.20/2005 C dated .3.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to mention that the interim stay dated 3.11.2006 shall stand vacated. However, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law. W.P.M.P.No.17439 of 2008 and W.P.No.21132 of 2006 are disposed of accordingly. No costs. 08.08.208. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21132 of 2006 Between: 1 A.V. Ramesh, S/o. A. Mohana Rao, R/o. Hiramandalam (V) & (M) Srikakulam District. 2 A.V. Buchabbai, S/o. A. Mohana Rao, R/o. Hiramandalam (V) & (M) Srikakulam District. 3 A.V. Suresh, S/o. A. Mohana Rao, R/o. Hiramandalam (V) & (M) Srikakulam District. 4 A. Srinivasababa Prasad, S/o. Mohana Rao, R/o. Hiramandalam (V) & (M) Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Srikukulam, Srikukulam District. 3 The Special Dy. Collector (L.A) Unit I, Hiramandalam, Srikukulam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Section 4 (1) notiﬁcation, published on 23-12-2005, dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) Land Acquisition Act and Sec. 6 Declaration gazetted on 19- 12-2005 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules made there- under as the Respondents issued Sec. 6 Declaration for acquiring the land on acreage basis instead of yardage basis and consequentially set aside the same so far as the petitioners are concerned or in the alternative direct the respondents to acquire the land by ﬁxing the compensation on yardage basis and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.R.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following: