THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26652 of 2007 Dated:12.07.2010 Between: Rayavarapu Madhavi, And another. ….Petitioners And The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26652 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners own small extents of plots admeasuring 206.6 square yards in survey Nos.47/3, 47/4 and 36/1 of Ambapuram Village, Ambapuram Panchayat, Vijayawada Rural in Krishna District. The first respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners in the above said survey numbers for the purpose of Township to be established by Vijayawada-Guntur- Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. Inter alia, it is contended that the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired, is vague, and based on such vague notification, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the property. The Counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court a recent order dated 04.06.2010 in W.P.No.4360 of 2007 and batch, where similar notifications were considered. This Court set aside the notification under the Act holding that the acquisition “for the purpose of development of township” is vague and for such vague reasons, the land cannot be acquired. The relevant observations are as follows. It is mentioned in the impugned notification that the land is acquired ‘for the purpose of development of township’. Though that may constitute the pubic purpose, the authorities were required to be specific and clear as to the nature of the project and other particulars thereof. The Supreme Court held that if the purpose mentioned in the notification is vague, the acquisition proceedings get vitiated. In the recent past, this Court dealt with the identical question in respect of proposed acquisition for the benefit of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority in Gajjela Narsimha Reddy vs. Collector, Ranga Reddy District (2008 (5) ALD 302). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in which the purpose was mentioned as “development of township” was held to be contrary to law. Accordingly, the notification was set aside. The judgment applies in all its force to the facts of the present case also. Following the above judgment, this writ petition is also allowed and the impugned notification is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.07.2010 vs