IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8807 of 2000 Between: 1 Smt. Buchi Sitayamma Garu, W/o Datla Venkatappala Raju Garu R/o Flat No.73, Meher Apartments C.B.M.Compound, Visakhapatnam. 2 Smt. Buchi C.Sudharani alias Butchi Bangarayamma Garu, W/o Chintalapati, Suryanarayana Raju Garu, R/o Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. M.N.Vijayalakshmi Devi Garu, W/o Sri Mirja Nallaparaja Prabhakara Ramchandra Raju Garu, R/o Tuni, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Collector, East Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate order direction or a writ plarticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus that the Section 4(1) notification dt:28-1-2000 issued by the Respondents No.1 in Ref.G2/5133/99 under the Land Acsquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.299 situated at Chikkula Agraharam Village of Tuni Mandalam in East Godavari District arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOKA RAGHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Panhayat Raj and Rural Development. The petitioners assailed the notification dated 28-01- 2000 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing acquisition of the petitioners’ property by invoking urgency under Section 17 of the Act and thereby dispensing with the salutary process of providing an opportunity to the petitioners under Section 5 (1) of the Act for lodging their objections to the process of acquisition. Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent stating that in view of the fact that the acquisition was required for a public purpose of providing house plots to the weaker sections, urgency was felt and was invoked. The draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 31-01-2000; in newspapers on 24-02-2000 and publication in the locality was on 29-02- 2000. Further, according to the counter affidavit, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette on 01-02-2000; in the newspapers on 28-02-2000 and 08-03- 2000 and in the locality on 29-02-2000. Responding to the allegations by the petitioners that their names do not find mention in the notifications under the Act, the counter states that as per the revenue records , o n e Smt. M.N. Vijaya Laxmidevi is the owner and in possession of an extent of Ac.03-90 cents and the land proposed for acquisition is in an extent of Ac.02-00 cents and a part of the said extent is in the name of Smt. M.N. Vijaya Laxmidevi. As the petitioners’ names have not been mutated in the revenue records, the notification bears the name of Smt. M.N. Vijaya Laxmidevi, is the contention of the respondents. In the considered view of this Court, the invocation of urgency and dispensing with the salutary process of enquiry under Section 5 of the Act is arbitrary. The land is proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to weaker section people and this is an on going policy of the State. It is not an overnight decision nor the economic plight of the people, a suddenly occurring emergency. At any rate, the opportunity provided to the landowners under Section 5 of the Act does not involve any extensive or dilatory process. No justification is apparent for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. No award has yet been passed. In the circumstances, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued by the gazette notification dated 01-02-2000 is quashed. The respondents will now issue a notice to the petitioners soliciting objections to the process of acquisition providing a reasonable time frame for response. On the petitioners’ lodging their objections to the process of acquisition, within the time stipulated in such notice, the respondents shall consider the same and pass a reasoned decision which shall be communicated to the petitioners by the competent authority. Till then, the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners nor issue the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 24-03-2008 Pvks/*