IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.27259 of 2009 Between: Jiyyana Venkata Rao & others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada and another ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 2. This court ordered notice before admission on 18-12-2009. 3. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not withdrawing the notification of proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act of the first respondent in proceedings No.G2/1258/2008 dated 11-04-2008 published in ‘The Hindu’ local newspaper regarding land acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy.No.372, admeasuring Ac.12.18 cents situated at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, belongs to the petitioners even though the notification lapsed long back, as illegal, contrary to law and against principles of natural justice and pass such other suitable orders. 4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. It is stated that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural dry land in Sy.No.372, admeasuring Ac.12.18 cents situated at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. 6. It is stated that the first respondent issued 4(1) Notification for acquiring the petitioner’s dry land in Sy.No.372, admeasuring Ac.12.18 cents situated at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, which was published in ‘The Hindu’ local newspaper dated 19-04-2008. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a notice by reference No.B1/260/2008 dated 19-04-2008 under Form-3 calling for the objections and to attend for personal hearing on 04-06-2008. Immediately on receipt of the notice, the petitioners submitted their written objections to the second respondent and attended to the second respondent office on 04-06-2008 to submit their oral objections. On that day, the second respondent without hearing anything simply had taken signatures in empty papers. The petitioners requested to hear the objections, but the second respondent declined to hear and asked the petitioners to come on some other day, which will be informed by him. But, the second respondent never asked the petitioners to come to his office to hear oral objections. 7. Further it is stated that the petitioners submitted a formal representation after issuing the 4(1) Notification to withdraw the proceedings to acquire the petitioners’ agricultural land. Subsequently, even though petitioners made a representation to the respondents immediately after notification and filed objections as per the Form-3 notice dated 19-04-2008, but the 5-A enquiry was not conducted by the second respondent and at that time, the petitioners made several representations and objections to the first and second respondents to withdraw the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. It is also stated that as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, Section 6 of the declaration has to be published within one year from the date of 4(1) Notification by the respondents. But, in the present case the 4(1) Notification was published on 19-04-2008. From the date of 4(1) Notification, declaration of Section 6 has to be published within one year from the 4(1) Notification i.e., 19-04-2008, so Section 6 declaration had to be given on or before 19-04-2008. If Section 6 declaration is not given within one year from the date of 4(1) Notification, the 4(1) Notification automatically lapsed. 9. It is further stated that even though the 4(1) Notification lapsed automatically, the petitioners unable to do anything in the said land. Since, the petitioners are the agriculturists, when they approached either to Nationalized Bank or Co-operative Bank or private persons for loan, they are denying to sanction loans, as the said land is under the process of land acquisition proceedings of the respondents. 10. It is further stated that as the respondents failed to withdraw the notification of proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of the first respondent in Proceedings No.G2/1258/08 dated 11-04-2008 published in ‘The Hindu’ local newspaper dated 19-04-2008 regarding Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of Sy.No.372, admeasuring Ac.12.18 cents situated at Thimmapuram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, belongs to the petitioners, even though the notification lapsed long back. It is stated that the petitioners are facing day-to-day problems in getting the agriculture loan or in registering any deed and suffering mental agony and sustaining irreparable loss. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners approached this court. 11. It is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that under Section 6 declaration was not made within time. The same is recorded. 12. In the light of the facts and circumstances, inasmuch as declaration under Section 6 had not been published within one year from 4(1) Notification and also in the light of the reasons which had been explained in paragraph Nos.4 to 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, since the 4(1) Notification had lapsed, the writ petitioners are bound to succeed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J December 31, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.27259 of 2009 December 31, 2009