IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 2133 of 2005 Between: Obilisetti Mangatayaru. .....APPELLANT AND 1.The Principal secretary to Government, Government of A.P., Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, The Acting Chief Justice) In the writ petition, petitioner-appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands on various grounds. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) had also been dispensed with. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition partly, and directed that an enquiry be held under Section 5-A of the Act, in accordance with law. We are told at the bar that the enquiry is pending. The appellant is aggrieved of the Section 4 (1) Notification itself on the ground that it is vague. We have seen the notification. After arguing for a while, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be allowed to raise the objection relating to vagueness in the enquiry being held under Section 5-A of the Act. He further submits that in fact the appellant has filed her objection and raised this plea. In this view of the matter, we dispose of the Writ Appeal directing the concerned authorities to consider the objection with respect to vagueness of Section 4(1) Notification as well. No costs. --------------------------------- (Bilal Nazki, A.C.J) 14th November, 2005 --------------------------------- (R.Subhash Reddy, J) LUR