IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.334 of 2008 Between: Gujju Saradhi and five others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam district and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Bheema Rao Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.334 of 2008 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) while acquiring the land belonging to the petitioners, vide notification dated 7-10-06 issued under Section 4(1) and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act as arbitrary and illegal. By the impugned notification, an extent of Ac.3.59 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.253/6B, 253/7B and 270/1 situated in Baliyaputtuga, Kanchili Mandal, Srikakulam District, is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections of Purushottapuram and Kanchili villages under Indiramma Programme. Having invoked the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act, enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents exercised the power vested in them under Section 17(4) of the Act arbitrarily by dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. He submitted that the purpose of acquisition, viz., providing house sites to weaker sections, is not that emergent warranting dispensing with of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. He further submitted that having simultaneously issued Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the respondents have not taken possession of the land so far. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition admitted that possession of the land has not so far been taken. To enable the State to exercise the power of eminent domain, the Act is enacted. The State is given power under Section 17(4) of the Act to invoke the urgency clause by dispensing with holding of enquiry in cases where urgency is involved. The Act provides for certain safeguards to the owners of the land, who are not willing to part with their land and one such safeguard is envisaged in Section 5-A of the Act, under which they are entitled to file their objections and be heard against the proposed acquisition. Therefore, such a valuable right cannot be denied to the citizens, whose lands are proposed to be acquired, unless bona fide urgency is involved and where the purpose of acquisition is so urgent as it does not brook the delay. As already noted, the purpose of acquisition is to provide house sites to weaker sections. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the said purpose is such that it cannot await holding of enquiry. Further, the very fact that despite lapse of more than 14 months after publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act the respondents have not taken possession of the land, shows that no such urgency as was felt by the respondents is involved. For the aforementioned reasons, declaration dated 7-10- 2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. Respondents are directed to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, before proceeding further. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 21-1-2008 MNR