THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 25161 of 2003 Dated: 21.10.2010 Between: V.Sarojini devi, Kerala State. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 25161 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notification dated 09.02.2003 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as Section 6 declaration dated 06.11.2003 issued by the first respondent to the extent of the petitioner’s property in R.S.No.301/3A/2 together with house No. 7-131 in M.R.Palle Village, Tirupati is arbitrary and illegal. It is stated that under the impugned notification dated 09.02.2003 the respondents sought to acquire 550 square feet of land out of the petitioner’s house property bearing No.7-131 for a public purpose namely road widening as per the master plan approved by the Tirupathi Urban Development Authority. Section 5-A enquiry was proposed to be conducted and the 2nd respondent was appointed to perform the functions of the Collector. Though the petitioner filed objections, without conducting the enquiry as provided under Section 5-A of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 was made proposing to take possession of Acs.0.02 cents of land (871 square feet) as against the 550 square feet proposed in the Section 4(1) notification. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that as more land was required in front of the petitioner’s building, it was proposed by the respondents to acquire 2 cents of the land of the petitioner. However, the fact that in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, it was proposed to acquire only 550 square feet has not been disputed. Be that as it may, when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no award is made till today pursuant to the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act and therefore, the entire proceedings for acquisition stood lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the Act. The fact that no award has been made so far has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed declaring that the impugned proceedings for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the notification dated 09.02.2003 so far as the property of the petitioner herein is concerned stood lapsed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.10.2010 KLP