IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6426 of 2007 Between: K.Muthyalu and 12 others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Vizianagaram and Another.. …. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu. & J.Bhaskar Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6426 of 2007 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notification dated 6-7-2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). At the hearing, Sri J.Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, advanced two contentions, viz., (1) that the proposed acquisition of agricultural land without its conversion for non- agricultural use is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006; and (2) that the respondents are not justified in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act for acquiring the land for construction of road over bridge. As regards the first contention, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment dated 28-12-2007 of this Court in Writ Peition No.18881 of 2006 and batch, wherein a similar contention was rejected. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is rejected. With respect to the second contention, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The purpose of acquisition, viz., construction of road over bridge, is not so urgent in nature, which warrants dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The provisions of Section 5-A provide a valuable opportunity to the landowners to file objections to the proposed acquisition. Such a valuable opportunity cannot be denied to the landowners unless the purpose of acquisition is such that it does not brook even the minimum delay caused in holding of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. V. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI(1)). For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. Respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by giving opportunity of filing objections and personal hearing to the petitioners, before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J MNR (1) AIR 2005 SC 3520.