IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1423 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Vundavalli Seethayamma, W/o. Peddaraju, R/o. Rangampeta Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Mavireddy Veeranna, S/o. Gurrayya, R/o. Rangampeta Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Smt. Pasala Annapurna, W/o. Janakiramayya, R/o. Rangampeta Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Sirigina Veera Venkata Srinivas, S/o. Venkata Raju, R/o. Rangampeta Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Sirigina Ayyanna, S/o. Veera Venkanna, R/o. Rangampeta Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 Smt. Sirigina Bullalu, W/o. Veera Venkanna, R/o. Rangampeta Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary (Social Welfare Department), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram Division, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 4 The Tahsildar, Ranampeta Mandal, Rangampeta, East Godavari 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 a 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, dated 11-6-2007, proceedings of the 2nd Respondent vide Ref. G2/3520/2007, dated 31-12-2007, and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 11-01-2008, proposing to acquire the lands of the Petitioners an extent of Ac. 6-00 cents covered by S.Nos 518/4, 519/1B, 519/2 & 20/1 of Rangampeta Village, Rangameta Mandal, East Godavari District, as arbitrary, illegal, violation of principles of natural justice, colourable exercise of power, offend to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and rules there under, and consequently direct the Respondents not acquire the Petitioner's lands. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 1423 of 2008 O R D E R: The lands belonging to the petitioners herein situated in Rangampeta Village and Mandal, East Godavari District were sought to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for public purpose namely for providing house sites under Indiramma programme. It is not in dispute that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was proposed to be conducted and pursuant to the notices issued by the respondents, the petitioners submitted their objections to the acquisition. The specific case of the petitioners is that subsequently, they were called upon to attend the personal hearing on 18-07-2007. Accordingly, they attended in person but no enquiry was conducted and they were informed by the respondents that the next date would be communicated to them. The only grievance of the petitioners is that without giving any further notice and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the second respondent passed an order on 31-12- 2007 rejecting their objections and consequently, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also made on 18-01-2008. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, this writ petition is filed contending primarily that the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from the mandatory requirements of personal hearing provided under Section 5-A of the Act. This Court, while issuing Rule Nisi, by order dated 29-01-2008, granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the order dated 31-12-2007 was passed after thoroughly considering the objections raised by the petitioners and after hearing the petitioners. However, having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and in the absence of any material to show that the petitioners were heard in person during the enquiry, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if a further opportunity is granted to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry. In the circumstances, the order dated 31-12-2007 as well as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 18-01-2008 so far as petitioners herein are concerned is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notice of hearing to the petitioners. Thereafter, it is open to the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioners afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners. Till such time, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 01-07-2008 KLP