THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.232 OF 2010 Dated: 12.01.2010 ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had placed letter dated 12.01.2010 bearing No.E/2211/09 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in Telugu Daily Prajasakthi dated 03.01.2010 as illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the property admeasuring Ac.5.18 guntas of land in Sy.No.10 of Maddur village, Manopad Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District originally belong to petitioner’s grand father namely Sri V.Sarabhaiah, who is an inamdar and subsequently, petitioner’s father Eeranna succeeded the same and as such, petitioner and his father along with other family members were in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owners and possessors. It is further submitted that the first respondent herein published the Impugned Gazetee notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in Telugu Daily “Prajasakthi” on 03.01.2010 whereby proposed the acquisition of our lands in Sy.No.10 to an extent of Ac.5.18 guntas for the purpose of constructing houses to the persons who were effected in the recent floods. Preceding the notification, it seems draft proposals were accepted by the first respondent vide his proceedings No.G2/39/2009, dated 30.12.2009 and directed publishing the same in the special supplement to Mahaboobnagar District Gazettee. It is quite seen that in the proposed gazette notification it was so mentioned that the enquiry under Section 5(A) was not dispensed with and the second respondent was directed to function on his behalf for conducting enquiry. Subsequent to the proposals, the impugned gazettee notification was issued and published on 03.01.2010 in the District Gazettee wherein it was so mentioned that the enquiry under Section 5-A is not contemplated. The proposals sought for in the gazette for acquisition is for constructing houses. This is not so urgent that by even dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to know the grievance of the landowner and to put forth the objections. It is further submitted that if an opportunity is given for conducting enquiry, the petitioner would have submitted the representation stating that the lands are valuable and cultivable agricultural lands and that several government vacant lands adjoining the proposed acquisition of lands and also in the village and that the same are more convenient and suitable for house sites. By dispensing with the enquiry ultimately, the respondents herein taken away their livelihood and the proposed acquisition of agricultural lands would result the petitioner as landless poor person and he has having four children and his family entirely dependent on cultivation. The lands are under cultivation of RDS Canal. There are caster oil plant crop in existence and they are commercial crops. If the lands are acquired, the petitioner will be put to irreparable hardship and injury. It is further stated that the lands are costly, cultivable agricultural lands and also not fit for human habitation by constructing any houses as the land is of loose soil. The respondent herein without having any estimation and due to local political influence, proposed the acquisition. The petitioner owns to the extent mentioned in the notification. Initially, the first respondent rightly proposed the enquiry under Section 5-A in the draft notification proposal dated 30.12.2009 and however, for the reasons best known to them avoided the enquiry under Section 5-A. Therefore, the action of the respondents is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition. Several facts had been narrated in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the substances also had been published in the locality and notices under form No.III under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act have been issued fixing the date for enquiry of objections on 03.02.2009. The said instructions are hereby recorded. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the objections in this regard before the second respondent and let R2 consider such objections and take appropriate decision in this regard. Till then, Status Quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained regarding possession. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J. 12th January 2010. Rns/Ksld