IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.5012 of 2008 Between: 1. Marri Rama Krishna S/o Ganapathi, R/o Morri Street, Korasada Village, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2. Yedla Narasimhulu S/o late Yedla Appalaswami, R/o Friends Colony, Parlakhemudi Post, Srikakulam District & Border of Orissa. 3. Ydata Chandra Padhi S/o Neelakanta Padhi, R/o Govinda Street, Parlakhemudi villagi & post, Srikakulam District & Border of Orissa. 4. Marlla Padmavathi W/o Prasadha Rao, R/o Parapuram village, Kottur Post & Mandalam, Srikakulam District. .... Petitioners And: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction setting aside the action of the respondents proposing to acquire the petitioner’s land situate in Sy.Nos.283-8 (Ac/3/43 Gts), 284-2 (Ac.1.40 Gts) & 285-1 (Ac.3.24 Gts), 286 (Ac.6.55 Gts.) situate in Kottur Mandal, Srikakulam District under Section 4(1) in pursuance of impugned notification NO.3432/2007 G5 dated 07.12.2007 of the 2nd respondent as null and void, arbitrary, illegal, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of the Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the petitioners’ land and pass such other and further order or orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri.M.Krishna Rao Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.5012 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside the notice dated 07.12.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), whereby certain lands belonging to petitioners mentioned in the writ petition are proposed to be acquired. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. A perusal of the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act shows that the respondent-authorities, proposed to acquire the lands of the petitioners for providing house site pattas to the displaced persons and alleging that there was urgency, they invoked urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act and thereby dispensed with enquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Act. Petitioners seek to assail the same, inasmuch as they were not given an opportunity to put forth their objections against the proposed acquisition. No doubt, Section 17(4) of the Act enables the Land Acquisition Authorities to dispense with the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5- A of the Act, but, the same shall not be resorted to in normal circumstances. As the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act provide a valuable opportunity to the land owners to put forth for their objections against the proposed acquisition, such an opportunity cannot be denied to them unless there is real urgency. The purpose mentioned in the notification impugned does not indicate that there is such an urgency to invoke urgency clause. Therefore, the action of the respondent- authorities in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be sustained. In Union of India v. Krishna Lal Arneja [1] , the Supreme Court also observed that in the absence of any material to show subjective satisfaction, urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “Section 17 confers extraordinary powers on the authorities under which it can dispense with the normal procedure laid down under Section 5-A of the Act in exceptional case of urgency. Such powers cannot be lightly resorted to except in case of real urgency enabling the Government to take immediate possession of the land proposed to be acquired for public purpose. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be, by itself is not sufficient to take aid of S.17 to use this extraordinary power as use of such power deprives a land owner of his right in relation to immovable property to file objections for the proposed acquisition and it also dispenses with the inquiry under S.5-A of the Act. The authority may have subjective satisfaction of the need for invoking urgency clause under S.17 keeping in mind the nature of the public purpose, real urgency that the situation demands and the time factor i.e, whether taking possession of the property can wait for a minimum period within which the objections could be received from the land owners and the inquiry under S.5-A of the Act could be completed.” For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part and the portion of the impugned notification dated 07.12.2007, by which enquiry is dispensed with, is quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition of the lands of the petitioners bearing Sy.No.283-8 admeasuring Ac.3.43 Guntas, Sy.No.284-2 admeasuring Ac.1.40 guntas, Sy.No.285-1 admeasuring Ac.3.24 guntas, and Sy.No.286 Acs.6.55 guntas situate in Kottur Mandal, Srikakulam District . There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 11.03.2008 Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) Sh [1] AIR 2004 sc 3582