IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:4979 of 2006 Date:21.10.2010 Between: Dr. Repaka Satya Sita Reddy Babu ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of AP., rep. By its Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:4979 of 2006 ORDER: In this Writ Petition the notification issued, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, the Act), for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner, among others, is the subject matter of challenge. The petitioner claim to own and to be in possession of Ac.0.43 cents of double crop wet land in Survey No.74/2E1/2 of Palakol town. It is his case that acquisition of his land, for construction of houses for weaker sections under Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme, is illegal in as much as the then Chief Minister had laid a foundation stone on 03.07.2005 in Sy.No.324 of Palakol town for construction of houses under the Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme; and, since the land in Sy.No.324 of Palakol was initially proposed for construction of houses for weaker sections, the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner, for the very same purpose, is illegal. Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the respondents had invoked the urgency clause, the petitioner has been denied the opportunity of putting forth his contentions in the enquiry prescribed under Section 5A of the Act. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer explaining the circumstances under which the land identified earlier was given a go-bye, and the petitioner’s land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose. It is their case that no other land is available which is suitable for construction of houses for weaker sections, and it is in such circumstances that the petitioner’s land was sought to be acquired. This Court, by order in W.P.M.P.No.6326 of 2006 in W.P.No.4979 of 2006 dated 14.03.2006 granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Section 4(1) notification of the Act dated 25.02.2006. The interim order has been in force for the past more than four and half years. The urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act is invoked, and an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, is dispensed with only in cases of real urgency and not as a matter of course. The opportunity available to a person, whose land is acquired, under Section 5A of the Act, has been held to be a valuable right by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chennai and others[1]. The very fact that acquisition proceedings have been pending for the past more than four years would justify an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act being held wherein all the contentions raised by the petitioners herein can be gone into. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to put the petitioner on notice, give him an opportunity of being heard under Section 5A of the Act and, thereafter, take action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:21.10.2010. Gk. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:4979 of 2006 Date:21.10.2010 Gk [1] (2005) 7 SCC 627