THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.2456 of 2009 Dated 26th April, 2011 Between: Peddageliche Rammohan Reddy and another …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Srisailam Project, Kurnool and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP for Land Acquisition The 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 for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.B6/55/2009, dated 28.01.2009, of respondent No.1. The petitioners are the owners and possesses of lands admeasuring Ac.0.70 cents, Acs.2.20 cents, Ac.0.75 cents and Acs.3.14 cents in Survey Nos.359-1, 359-2, 357-1, 357-2 and 358 of Gelichevaripalli, H/o N.P.Kunta Mandal, Ananthapur District. The said lands, along with other various lands, were notified for acquisition, vide notification in Rc.B6/55/2009, dated 28.01.2009. Before the said notification was issued, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.23220 of 2007. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order, dated 18.02.2008, restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners without following due process of law. Nearly one year after the disposal of the said writ petition, the impugned notification has been published. At the hearing, Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents having waited for one year after disposal of the previous writ petition, have initiated land acquisition proceedings by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). He, therefore, submitted that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act is arbitrary. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that in view of the nature of urgency involved, the respondents have dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Even though the respondents have the power of eminent domain, the said power is required to be utilised in a proper and reasonable manner and in accordance with law as it results in deprivation of land to its owner. After review of the entire case law, the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Sri Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRs and others v. State of U.P. and others[1], held that the State is required to invoke the urgency clause and dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act sparingly and in exceptional cases. At para-53 of the judgment, it is held as under: “(iv) The property of a citizen cannot be acquired by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities without complying with the mandate of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be does not entitle the State to invoke the urgency provisions because the same have the effect of depriving the owner of his right to property without being heard. Only in a case of real urgency, the State can invoke the urgency provisions and dispense with the requirement of hearing the land owner or other interested persons.” In the instant case, even though the previous writ petition was disposed of as far back as 18.02.2008, the respondents waited for nearly one year before coming out with the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any justification for the respondents to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Even though this Court by the interim order, dated 10.02.2009, permitted the respondents to go ahead with the other proceedings, while staying dispossession of the petitioners, it is not stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents have completed the formalities of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and passing of the award. Therefore, in my opinion, having regard to the huge time lag even after filing of this writ petition and failure to complete acquisition proceedings, it is appropriate that the respondents hold an enquiry to the extent of the lands of the petitioners before proceeding further. Accordingly, the impugned notification is set aside only to the extent of dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act with the direction to the respondents to hold enquiry before deciding to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.3139/09, & 18113/10 and W.V.M.P.No.2038 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th April, 2011 VGB [1] Civil Appeal No.3261 of 2011, dated 15.04.2011