IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.13381 of 2005 Between: Palasala Mohini Devi and three others. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue & Land Acquisition, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Rama Gopal. Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed to set aside notification dated 26-4-2005 issued by the respondents under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) proposing to acquire an extent of 143 Sq. yards of land, belonging to the petitioners, situated in Ward No.2, Block No.44, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. By the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land belonging to the petitioners is proposed to be acquired for laying an approach road from Sanjay Nagar cross road to the main road, Kakinada Town. The main ground on which the Writ Petition is filed is that the respondents invoked urgency clause and dispensed with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 24-6-2005, the respondents held enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is stated that though notices were issued to the petitioners fixing 29-8-2005 as the date of enquiry, none of the petitioners or their counsel appeared, nor did they file any objections; and that enquiry was completed on 29-8-2005. Since the grievance of the petitioners, that enquiry was dispensed with, ceased to exist with the holding of enquiry by the respondents, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that it is not known whether declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued or not. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is also unable to provide information in this regard. Since the scope of the present Writ Petition is confined to dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act, I am not inclined to go into the question whether declaration under Section 6 of the Act is published or not. If, eventually, no such declaration is published, the land acquisition proceedings get lapsed. However, it is for the petitioners to raise a specific plea in this regard in appropriate proceedings if they so choose. Hence, liberty is given to the petitioners to initiate separate proceedings, if they are so advised, in order to challenge the notification only on the ground that the respondents failed to publish the declaration under Section 6 of the Act within the time stipulated by the provisions of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.16979 of 2005 and WVMP No.3030 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. -------------------------------- ---- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 18-6-2008 MNR