IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4383 of 2005 Between: Sri Pydah Venkanna Rama Krishnayya Choultry, Draksharama East GodavariDistrict reptd., by its Founder Family Member Phdah Subrahmanyam Jagannadha Satya Prasad, D.No.3-16B-106, Santhinagar, Kakinada, E.G.District aged about 52 years, S/o Sri Ramakrishna Murthy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments Departmet, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst.Commissioner, Endowments-cum-Executive Officer, Sri Pydah Venkanna Ramakrishnayya Choultry, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 Mohammed Masthan Vali and 15 others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.JAYASURYA Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondents 4 to 19: MR N.SIVA REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri N.Jayasurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Land Acquisition and Endowments for respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively, Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 19, and perused the record. In this writ petition, the petitioner, which is a charitable institution registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the 1987 Act’), questioned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the 1894 Act’), whereby an extent of Acs.12.94 cents of dry land comprised in Survey Nos.269/1A, 276/2 and 277/2A of Vella Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District was notified for acquisition for the purpose of provision of house sites to poor people. The writ petition is filed mainly on two grounds, namely; that before notifying the lands for acquisition, the respondents have not taken the permission of the Commissioner, Endowments as envisaged in Section 80 of the 1987 Act and that invocation of power under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act by respondent No.1 to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act is arbitrary. While no counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, respondents 4 to 19, who got impleaded filed their affidavit. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 80 of the 1987 Act declares gift, sale, exchange or mortgage of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or religious institution or endowment, without prior sanction of the Commissioner, as null and void. In the instant case, none of the measures referred to in the said provision is being taken. The lands of the petitioner are notified for acquisition in exercise of the statutory power vested in the State by the provisions of the 1894 Act. In my considered view, acquisition of land for a public purpose under the provisions of the said Act does not constitute gift, sale, exchange or mortgage of the immovable property belonging to a charitable institution within the meaning of Section 80 of the 1987 Act. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel is rejected. With respect to the second contention, namely; that dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, I am in agreement with the learned counsel. The Supreme Court held in a catena of judgments that Section 5-A of the 1894 Act affords a valuable opportunity for the land owners to raise their objections against the proposed acquisition and unless the purpose of acquisition is so urgent as to warrant its dispensation, the enquiry shall not be dispensed with. (See Munshi Singh vs. Union of India[1] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Darius Shapur Chenai[2]). In my considered view, the purpose of providing house sites to poor people is not so emergent in nature which does not brook the delay of holding enquiry. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that possession was already taken. By order dated 19-04-2005, this Court granted interim stay and it is not in dispute that in view of the said order of stay, the land has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was proposed to be acquired. Therefore, the fact of taking possession is of no consequence when this Court is convinced that dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5- A of the 1894 Act cannot be sustained. For the above mentioned reasons, declaration dated 27-02-2004 issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner’s representative, before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. As regards possession, status quo as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No.1916 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 11th July, 2008 vrn [1] AIR 1973 SC 1150 [2] (2005) 7 SCC 627