THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19911 OF 2008 O R D E R: The Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, published a Notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) on 26.2.2007, proposing to acquire the properties of the petitioners, for the purpose of widening a road in Hyderabad. The urgency clause, under Section 17(4) of the Act, was invoked, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 26.2.2007. The petitioners ﬁled W.P.No.4693 of 2007, challenging the said notiﬁcation. The writ petition was allowed on 8.3.2007, setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and directing that the enquiry under Section 5-A, be held. The respondents issued notice under Section 5-A of the Act, and thereafter, passed an order dated 10.12.2007. The same was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3320 and 848 of 2008. Through its order, dated 22.2.2008, this court found fault with the reasons assigned by the District Collector, in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, was directed. It is in this context, that the 2nd respondent issued notice, dated 20.8.2008, under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners challenge the same, on the ground that in view of lapse of more than one year, from the date of Notiﬁcation under Section 4(1), it is no longer possible and compatible for the 2nd respondent, to publish declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and the proposed enquiry would be only a futile exercise. Other contentions are also urged. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the period of one year had elapsed, from the date of publication of Notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, and it would not be permissible for the 2nd respondent to publish the Notiﬁcation, even if the grounds raised by the petitioners in the proposed enquiry under Section 5-A are found to be untenable. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition brought to the notice of this court that a declaration under Section 6, was published in the District Gazette on 4.1.2008, and with that there was compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. She contends that mere fact that enquiry is carried beyond one year, does not render the proceedings untenable. The proposed enquiry, under Section 5-A of the Act, is being conducted, in pursuance of a speciﬁc direction issued by this court. If it was otherwise incompatible, it was open to the petitioners to raise this very ground in W.P.No.4693 of 2007, or to bring it to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Having persuaded this court to set aside an order passed under Section 5-A of the Act, it is not open to the petitioners to raise this ground, at this stage. At any rate, the petitioners can raise all the grounds, including the one, relating to limitation, available to him in the on-going enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds, including the one relating to limitation, in the on-going enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The 2nd respondent shall deal with all the contentions and pass an order, on the representation made by the petitioners, uninﬂuenced by any of the observations made by this court, before publishing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ 24th September 2008 PAN