THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.23767 of 2006 Dated: 30.03.2010 Between: Adapa Surya Rao and others. .. Petitioners. And Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. Petitioners 1 to 3 claim to be the brothers and sons of late Adaya Sarayya, who along with his niece Mekala Appa Rao purchased the land admeasuring Ac.2.52 cents in Sy.Nos.266/2 in Virawada village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District (hereinafter referred as ‘the subject land’), from its owner and possessor vide registered sale deed dated 01.07.1942 bearing document No.1065/1942. Petitioners 4 and 5 claim to be the daughter- in-law and granddaughter of petitioner No.2 respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Mekala Appa Rao, who pre-deceased Adapa Sarayya, had in fact executed Will bequeathing his share in favour of Adapa Sarayya during his lifetime. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 claim to have purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.46 cents and Ac.0.80 cents, out of Ac.2.52 cents of land, by virtue of document Nos.4450/2006 and 4449/2006, both dated 03.10.2006, respectively. While so, the 1st respondent-District Collector, East Godavari District, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), which was published in Gazette vide reference No.G2/2463/2006, dated 26.05.2006, proposing to acquire the subject land for the purpose of providing house sites to beneficiaries under “Indiramma Adarsa Village Scheme”, and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. After coming to know about the proposed acquisition of the subject land, petitioners 1 to 3 and one Mekala Venkata Rao got issued a legal notice on 29.05.2006 to respondent No.3 and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pithapuram, bringing to their notice about the subject land being inherited by them from their fathers, availability of other suitable lands in their village for proposed acquisition and requesting them not to acquire their land. Thereafter, another notice dated 13.10.2006 was got issued by the 4th petitioner and her husband Adapa Bheema Raju, who is the son of the 2nd petitioner, informing the authorities about their purchase of the land to an extent of Ac.1.26 cents and the inheritance of the remaining land to an extent of Ac.1.26 cents and requesting them to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of their land. The petitioners complain that by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, without there being urgency, they were denied the opportunity of raising their objections not only in respect of the entitlement of compensation, but also in pointing out better alternative lands that are available for acquisition. While admitting the writ petition on 05.01.2007, this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.30305 of 2006, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in Gazette vide Reference No.G2/2463/2006, dated 26.05.2006. Respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District, filed a detailed counter affidavit, stating that as per the village accounts, the land proposed to be acquired is shown as ‘Vurummadi Site”, and one Gopu China Venkata Rao, Trustee, and three others gave their consent for acquisition of the subject land. It is further stated that the petitioners filed their objections against the proposed acquisition and the same are referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pithapuram, for enquiry and report. It is also stated that as the petitioners purchased the subject land and got the sale deed, pertaining to the said land, registered in the Sub-Registrar’s office, Pithapuram, on 03.10.2006, i.e., after publication of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.05.2006, the sale is deemed to be invalid. Since the subject land was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to weaker section under Indiramma Programme, which the State Government has initiated as a priority agenda, in view of urgency, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been dispensed with, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. It is also stated that in respect of entitlement of compensation, the petitioners can raise their claim at the Award Enquiry or file O.Ps for compensation in respect of their lands. The petitioners question the proposed acquisition of their land mainly on the ground that in view of dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, they lost their valuable right to raise their objections not only with regard to their entitlement of compensation but also to point out better alternative lands available for acquisition. The respondents, in the counter affidavit, contend that since the proposed acquisition of the subject land is for providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma Programme, which is the priority programme being undertaken up by the Government, in view of the urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is dispensed with, however, the petitioners can raise their claim in respect of entitlement of compensation at the Award Enquiry or file O.Ps for compensation to their lands. Admittedly, the purpose for which the lands of the petitioners were proposed to be acquired is to provide house sites to weaker sections and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. In identical case in Butchi Sitayamma Garu and others v. Collector, East Godavari District and another[1], where the lands were also proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections, this Court has categorically held that providing house sites to weaker sections is an on going policy of the State and it is not an overnight decision nor the economic plight of the people, a suddenly occurring emergency, and thus invocation of urgency and dispensing with the salutary process of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, in such circumstances, is arbitrary and, therefore, quashed the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. In view of the above settled position of law and considering the circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act and direct the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, duly issuing notice to the petitioners and considering their objections, if any, raised to the proposed acquisition, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 30.03.2010 v v [1] 2008 (6) ALD (NOC 66)