THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 16629 of 2008 Dated: 23.08.2010 Between: Kosaraju Srinivasa Rao, Prakasam District and 3 others. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Ongole and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16629 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners herein claim title and possession in respect of Ac.01.11 cents in Sy.No.42/1A, Ac.01.23 cents in Sy.No.42/1C, Ac.0.55 cents and Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.42/1D of Kodavalivaripalem Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District. Under the notification dated 31.05.2008 published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the said land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose namely for distribution of house sites to Harijans. Having invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4), enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 02.06.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter laia that the impugned action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the land in question is arbitrary and illegal as the petitioners are small farmers. It is also contended that the respondents ought not to have invoked the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act thereby depriving the petitioners the valuable right to raise the objections against the acquisition of their land. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. As could be seen, the land is sought to be acquired for providing house sites for construction of residential houses under Indiramma Programme. No doubt it is for a public purpose, but there is no need for invoking the urgency clause. As held in Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja[1] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., V. Darius Shapur Chenai[2], unless there is real and genuine urgency, an aggrieved party should not be deprived an opportunity of hearing. Having regard to the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired, it is apparent that the urgency clause was invoked mechanically without application of mind to the nature of public purpose. It is also relevant to note that the interim order of status quo ordered by this Court on 31.07.2008 has been in operation all through. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioners to raise their objections. Accordingly, the draft declaration made under Section 6 of the Act dated 02.06.2008 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conduct the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act following due process of law and then take necessary further steps in accordance with law. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 23.08.2010 KLP [1] 2004(8) SCC 453 [2] 2005(7) SCC 627