THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.19582 AND 21725 of 2005 10.03.2011 Between: Abdullah Bin Mubarak And others. ...Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.19582 AND 21725 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: The writ petitions are filed by the owners of agricultural lands situated at Darga Khaleeza Khan of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The challenge is to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) proposing to acquire the petitioners’ lands for public purpose to be ‘for development of township and future projects. Inter alia, it is urged that the purpose is vague and therefore illegal. Counsel for the petitioners, the Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) and the Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), do not dispute that the similar notification for acquiring other lands has been invalidated by this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy v Collector, Ranga Reddy District[1]. In these two cases, however, the standing counsel for HMDA submits that as the stay was granted for limited period, during the interregnum award was passed. Insofar as the subject matter of W.P.No.19582 of 2005 is concerned, possession was already taken. In the opinion of this Court, these do not in any manner against granting the relief to the petitioners, which were granted by this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy. Indeed, following the same, this Court has also held that if the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act are held to be ex facie illegal, all the consequential proceedings would also be rendered invalid. The issues raised herein are similar and therefore the above mentioned judgment squarely covers this case. Following the same, these writ petitions are also allowed and the impugned notifications in these writ petitions are quashed. This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents from initiating the proceedings afresh in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.03.2011 pln [1] 2008 (5) ALD 302