HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 19451 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.14-121, Shamshabad village and Mandal, R.R.District. It is stated that there is a built up area of 1860 sq. fts. in the premises. A new building is said to have been constructed after obtaining the permission from the Gram Panchayat. A notice dated 18/09/2002 was served upon the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District/the first respondent herein, requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground that it was acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway No.7. Draft notification under Section 4 (1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) were said to have been published in the District Gazette on 09/09/2002 and 11/09/2002 respectively. The petitioner submits that the acquisition of the land for widening of the road does not involve such an urgency as to dispense with enquiry under Section 5 of the Act and that the whole proceedings are vitiated. It is further contended that even if the urgency clause was invoked, possession could have been taken only on payment of 80% of the compensation. The writ petition was admitted way back on 03/10/2002. An interim order was granted in W.P.M.P.No.24425 of 2002 directing that there shall be stay of dispossession of the petitioner subject to condition that in case the 80% of the estimated compensation is paid, it shall be open to the respondents to take possession. Eight years have elapsed and the respondents have not chosen to file any counter-affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is rather astonishing that the respondents, who felt that the matter of acquisition of the property of the petitioner cannot brook the delay of one month, during which enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act can be held, have not chosen to file a counter- affidavit though eight years have elapsed. It only shows the respect which the respondents show to the procedure prescribed under law. Section 5 of the Act provides a semblance of protection to the citizens against compulsory acquisition. It is during the course of enquiry under that provision, that objections and representations, if any, can be made. The ultimate discretion and decision rests with the authorities. The enquiry under that provision can be dispensed with, only when the matter is so urgent that taking possession of the land cannot wait even for days. The proposals for widening of road and the further proceedings are separate over years together. Survey has to be undertaken and proposals have to be approved by various departments. Though the officials take months and years together at their level, they are so touchy about the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act that they feel that imminent urgency is involved. Even assuming that the respondents needed the premises immediately, they could have taken the possession by only offering 80% of the tentative compensation payable for the land. They have not chosen to do so, even after this Court permitted them to take possession by paying the compensation. The Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the land of the petitioner are set aside. It is left open for the respondents to initiate rest of the proceedings in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 10th June, 2010 SKM