IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19538 of 2008 Between: 1 A.Sivamma, W/o. A.Nageswara Reddy, R/o. H.No.1/81-A, Kondapuram (R.S) V & Mandal, Kadapa District. 2 A.Easwaramma, W/o. A.Venkata Subba Reddy, R/o. H.No.1/81, Kondapuram (R.S) V & Mandal, Kadapa District. 3 A.Venkata Lingamma, W/o. A.Venkata Narayana Reddy, R/o. H.No.1/81-B, Kondapuram (R.S) V & Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Scretary, I & CAD (Projects) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Collector,Land Acquisition, Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS), Sankarapuram, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Special Deputy Collector,Land Acquisition, Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS), Unit - III Muddanur, Kadapa District. 4 The District Collector, cum chairman & Empowered Committee, Kadapa, Kadapa 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notiﬁcation issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide proceedings Ref.No.GNSS/C/951/2008, dated 20.8.2008 and draft declaration Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by vide proceedings Ref.No.GNSS/C/951/2008, DATED 22.8.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India in respect of the lands of the petitioners i.e., the 1st petitioner in sy.No.154 an extent of Ac.3.84 cents, the 2nd petitioner in Sy.No.154 an extent of Ac.3.84 cents, the 3rd petitioner in Sy.No.154 an extent of Ac.3.84 cents (Total Ac.11.52 cents) respectively situated at Obannapet Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District and quash the same and consequently stay of all further proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued Under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide proceedings Ref.No.GNSS/C/951/2008, dated 20.8.2008 and draft declaration Under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by vide proceedings Ref.No.GNSS/C/951/2008, dated 22.08.2008 including dispossession of the petitioners in respect of the lands of the petitioners ie., the 1st petitioner in sy.No.154 an extent of Ac.3.84 cents, the 2nd petitioner in Sy.No.154 an extent of Ac.3.84 cents, the 3rd petitioner in sy.No.154 an extent of Ac.3.84 cents (Total Ac.11.52 cents) respectively situated at Obannapet Village and Gram Panchayat, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.Y.VENKATASATYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi, Sankarapuram, Kadapa District, the second respondent herein, issued notification, dated 20.08.2008, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire Acs.69.41 cents of land situated in Obannapet Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District, for the purpose of main canal of the project. The lands of the petitioners and certain others were notified. The grievance of the petitioners is that though there exists various structures over the land, they were not notiﬁed and they challenge the notiﬁcation, dated 20.08.2008. They also complain that the respondents could have chosen another alignment passing through barren lands, instead of depriving the petitioners of their livelihood. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The second respondent proposed to acquire Acs.69.41 cents of land of Obannapet Village. The lands of the petitioners are also included. The grievance of the petitioners is two-fold, namely, their fertile lands, which are source of their livelihood, are sought to be acquired and that the structures standing thereon are not notified. This Court cannot express any opinion as to the grounds pleaded by the petitioners. Had an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been contemplated under the Act, there would have been possibility for the petitioners to ventilate their grievances. The ﬁrst respondent has dispensed with the enquiry. The invocation of urgency clause in a matter of this nature has totally untenable. It is not as if that the proposed work cannot wait for a period of one month within which the enquiry can be completed. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the second respondent shall cause enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. He shall cause service of notice under Section 5-A of the Act to the eﬀected parties and it shall be open to the petitioners to put forward their contentions. The second respondent shall take the objections received during the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, into account, before publishing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.30.09.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ