HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WVMP.No.2617 of 2007 and WRIT PETITION No.4189 of 2007 17.01.2008 Between: Bangaru Surya Kantham … Petitioner AND The District Collector, West Godavari District and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WVMP.No.2617 of 2007 and WRIT PETITION No.4189 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: This is an application to vacate interim order, dated 02.03.2007 passed in WPMP.No.5362 of 2007 in W.P.No.4189 of 2007. At the interlocutory stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notification, dated 11.02.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. In the writ petition, the petitioner mounted challenge to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the notification under which the petitioner’s land is sought to be acquired is contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for non- agricultural purposes) Act, 2006, inasmuch as the land of the petitioner, which is proposed to be acquired is an agricultural land and without converting the same, no acquisition can be made. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the issue of non-conversion is covered by judgment, dated 28.12.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.18881 of 2006 and batch, wherein this Court negatived the similar contention. The other contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is mentioned that a notice has been issued to the petitioner on 16.02.2007, whereunder objections were called for and to attend enquiry on 05.03.2007 and the petitioner submitted her objections, he has no information in this regard. He therefore, requested that the respondents may be directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before taking a final decision on the proposed acquisition. In the light of the above submissions and the judgment of this Court referred to supra, the writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.2 is, however, directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders thereafter before proceeding further with the proposed acquisition. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WVMP.No.2617 of 2007 and WPMP.No.5362 of 2007 are also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th JANUARY, 2008. kvni