IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25432 of 2006 Between: Vaddadi Bhaskara Ramam & another. … Petitioners And The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N. Chandrasekhar for Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25432 of 2006 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare notification, dated 20.10.2006, issued by respondent No.1 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and the consequential action of respondent No.2 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their lands, without following the procedure contemplated under the Act, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Sections 3 and 5 of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for non- agricultural purposes) Act, 2006. The petitioners are the owners of the lands, which are notified for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma programme. The said lands are agricultural lands and by the time of issuance of the impugned notification, the use of the lands was not converted for non-agricultural purpose. While enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is pending, this writ petition is filed on the plea that the very proposal to acquire the agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose without converting the land use is illegal and impermissible. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in R.Veera Raghava Prasad and others v. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another[1], wherein it was held that conversion of nature of land use is not sine qua non for acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed this position in law. Having regard to the judgment in R.Veera Raghava Prasad (supra) and the fact that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is pending, no relief at this stage can be granted in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit their objections before the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the objections from the petitioners, the respondents shall fix a date of hearing and intimate the same to them. Thereafter, appropriate orders under Section 5-A of the Act can be passed, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 06.12.2006 is vacated and WPMP.Nos.32568 of 2006 and 24214 of 2011 and WVMP.No.74 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.07.2011 ES [1] 2008 (2) ALT 136