IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12387 of 2008 Between: Brahmandam Balasubrahmanyam S/o. Bapaiah Panthulu R/o. D.No.12-5-42, Sikharamvari Street, Bapatla Town, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22. 2.The District Collector, Nellore District, at Nellore. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kavali Division, Kavali, Nellore 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing Notification Dt. 22.05.2008 vide RC.G3.2036/2008 for acquiring the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.375/1, 2 & 3 admeasuring about Ac.23.60 Cents, situated at Padugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, against the Rules of the Revenue Department, against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and set-aside the same, consequently direct the respondents not ot acquire the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.375/1, 2 & 3 admeasuring about Ac.23.60 Cents, situated at Padugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, Nellore District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLA.SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.12387 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the second respondent in issuing notification, dated 22.05.2008, for acquiring the lands of the petitioner situated in Padugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, Nellore District, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is arbitrary and illegal. Though various contentions have been raised by the petitioner, it is to be noted that under the impugned notification, enquiry is proposed to be conducted under Section 5A of the Act and therefore, it is always open to the petitioner to raise all his objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner stated that as a matter of fact, he has already made a representation on 02.06.2008. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 02.06.2008, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is also granted liberty to make a fresh representation raising all the objections, including that are raised in this writ petition, within a period of two weeks from today, in which event, the same shall also be considered by the respondents before taking any further steps pursuant to the impugned notification. No costs. _______________ 17.06.2008 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow. (b/o) VGB