IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18318 of 2008 Between: 1 NSL Sugar Limited, rep. by its Executive Director, Mr. K. Ramakoteswara Rao having its registered office at #60/1, 2nd Cross, Residency Road, Bangalore, having its Regional Office at No.60/1, 2nd Cross Residency Road, Bangalore-560025. 2 K. Ramakoteswara Rao S/o. Kommalapati Rama Koteswara Rao NSL Sugars Limited, NSL Icon, 4th Floor, H.No.8-2-684/2/A, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collector, Guntur District. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 3 The Tahsildar, Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District. 4 Sri Janga Krishna Murthy S/o. Peda Veeraiah Gurazala Constituency, R/o. 2-39, Gamalapadu (V), Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the 1st petitioner's lands to an extent of Ac.18-59 cents in Sy.Nos.1308/1BB/1A2 & 1308/1BB/1C, situated at Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District, by the respondent herein, in colourable exercise of power, ostensibly by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and being malice in law and fact, apart from being a fraud on the statute, and being in violation of the Constitutional mandate as enjoined under Articles 14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles of promissory estoppel & legitimate expectation, and consequently quash the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as notified in proceedings in R.C.No.298/08/G3, dt. 27-04-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. D.SESHADRI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18318 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of Ac.18-59 cents of land in Sy.Nos.1308/1BB/1A2 and 1308/1BB/1C situated at Gurazala Mandal, Guntur District. The said lands were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the purpose of providing house-sites under Indiramma Scheme. To that effect, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 27.4.2008 appointing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet for the purpose of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners state that they have already submitted their objections to the acquisition and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is still pending. While so, the Tahsildar, Gurazala Mandal by letter dated 17.7.2008 directed the petitioners to stop the constructions in the land which is the subject-matter of the notification failing which action would be taken against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. As could be seen from the material on record, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is still pending and notification under Section 6 of the Act has not been made. As per sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purpose and as per Section 8 of the Act the land may be caused to be marked out only after such declaration. Section 16 of the Act further made it clear that the possession of the land in question may be taken after making an award under Section 11 and thereupon the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. In view of the scheme of the Act noticed above, as on today the land in question cannot be held to be vested with the Government. In the circumstances, the impugned directions issued by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Gurazala Mandal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders following due process of law. Till such order is passed and further steps as contemplated under the provisions of the Act are taken, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question without following due process of law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 22.08.2008 gbs