IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.306 of 2008 Between: Smt. J. Subbamma & others. ..... Petitioners AND The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt. V. Himabindu Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.308 of 2008 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, this 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 notification dated 26.11.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) in respect of Ac.21.30 cents in Sy.Nos.57/1, 57/2 and 62/2 of Chapirevula Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioners claim that they are all small farmers and the lands, which are proposed to be acquired, are wet lands. Therefore, they have questioned the notification issued under Section 4(1) for the purpose of acquisition for providing house sites to the people belonging to weaker sections. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia stated that in pursuance of the impugned notification, notices under Section 5A of the Act were issued in Form-III to all the interested persons including the petitioners on 01.12.2007 fixing 11.01.2008 for filing objections and for enquiry and that on 10.01.2008, 16 objection petitions were received from the petitioners and other interested persons. It is further stated that having filed the objections, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition without waiting for the decision to be taken by the Collector. In my opinion, the respondents have the power and authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and it is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act suffers from legal or jurisdictional defects for maintaining the Writ Petition even before completion of enquiry and passing appropriate order on their objections. Therefore, the Writ Petition is wholly premature and not maintainable at this stage, more so, when the petitioners have already filed their objections and the enquiry into the said objections has not yet been held. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in the event the objections filed by them are rejected in the enquiry to be held under Section 5A of the Act by the respondents. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.317 of 2008 and WVMP.No.294 of 2008 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.04.2011 ES