IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4378 of 2008 Between: Telli Vykunta Rao and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.V.CHALAPATHI RAO 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.4378 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Notification dated 05.02.2008, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition. A perusal of the impugned notification shows that the land of an extent of Ac.1.86 cents, comprised in Sy.Nos.134/7A, 135/2, 135/3A, and 135/6A of Cheekatisompeta village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections. It is mentioned in the notification that in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of Section-4 and Sec.3(c) of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh authorizes the Sub-Collector, Tekkali to exercise functions of the Collector under Sec.5-A of the Act. However, in the last paragraph of the notification, respondent No.1 invoked the provisions of Sec.17(4) and dispensed with enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. The manner in which the impugned notification is couched is thoroughly unsatisfactory, to say the least. Respondent No.1, who issued the impugned notification, cannot assume the role of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and say that “hereby authorizes the Sub- Collector, Tekkali” to exercise the functions of the Collector under Sec.5-A of the Act. Respondent No.1 seems to be oblivious of the fact that the statement that the powers of Collector are conferred on Sub- Collector, Tekkali could be made by the Governor alone and not by him, while issuing the notification. The last paragraph of the notification contains an equally serious anomaly. While in the penultimate paragraph of the notification, the powers of enquiry under Sec.5-A were entrusted to the Sub-Collector, Tekkali, in the last paragraph, enquiry under Sec.5-A is dispensed with. If respondent No.1 intended to invoke urgency clause and dispense with enquiry under Sec.5-A, I do not see any reason why a statement is made in the previous paragraph that powers of enquiry under Sec.5-A are entrusted to the Sub-Collector, Tekkali. The contents of the notification thus reveal total non-application of mind on the part of respondent No.1 and evidently he has not even gone through the notification before signing the same. Hopefully, respondent No.1 will not repeat this act of casual approach, at least in future. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the purpose, for which the acquisition is proposed to be made, namely, provision of house sites to weaker sections, dispensing with enquiry under Sec.5-A, is wholly uncalled for. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition, I am of the view that respondent No.1 is not justified in dispensing with enquiry under Sec.5-A, because the purpose, namely, provision of house sites for weaker sections is not so urgent in nature, which does not brook the delay in holding enquiry under Sec.5-A. The provisions of Sec.5-A provide for valuable opportunity for landowners to raise objections against the proposed acquisition and such a valuable right cannot be taken away in a casual manner, irrespective of whether urgency is involved or not. In view of the above, the impugned notification, to the extent of dispensing with enquiry under Sec.5-A, is set aside. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Sec.5-A by giving the petitioners an opportunity of filing objections and participating in the enquiry before seeking to proceed further. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 29.02.2008 Dsr