IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 5084 of 2007 Between: 1 M.Kamakshi @ Vijaya W/o.Rama Rao rep.by his GPA 1st petitioner Both are Resident of D.No.59A- 21/7/5/1,Patamata Vijayawada, Krishna District 2 M.Srinivasa Rao S/o.Rama Rao rep.by his GPA 1st petitioner Both are Resident of D.No.59A- 21/7/5/1,Patamata Vijayawada, Krishna District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam 3 The REvenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition Officer Nuzvid, Krishna District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri N. Promodh for Sri A.Venkata Ramaiah Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 5084 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification dated 29.01.2007 issued under Section 4(1) and declaration dated 04.03.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) by respondent No.2 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.9.00 cents in Sy.No.102 of Thadanki Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District. Heard Sri N. Pramod representing Sri A. Venkata Ramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The main grievance of the petitioners as expressed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the hearing, is that no notices were served on them under Section 5A of the Act, no opportunity of hearing was given to them and that no orders were passed and communicated to them by respondent No.2 in the enquiry purportedly held under Section 5A of the Act. I have perused the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and the same is silent on the abovementioned aspects. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition fairly says that the record shows that Section 5A notices were published by way of tom tom and no personal service was effected. He also submitted that the record does not contain any order passed by respondent No.2 under Section 5A. The petitioners, being the land owners, are entitled to notices under Section 5A of the Act and file their objections, which are required to be considered and disposed of by the authority competent in this regard. Since the respondents failed to follow the proper procedure, which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, the impugned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to hold fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioners to file their objections and pass appropriate orders thereon before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. The petitioners shall file their objections within a period of two weeks from today and thereupon the respondents shall hold enquiry and pass appropriate orders. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.6498 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.08.2008 ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies