THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.2827 of 2007 Date: 28.01.2008 Between: Manda Hari Ganesh … Petitioner AND The District Collector (L.A.), West Godavari District, Eluru & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Chidambaram Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.2827 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notification dated 12.01.2007 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), whereunder extents of Ac.0.44 cents and Ac.1.44 cents comprised in R.S.Nos.82/3A1 and 82/3A respectively of Kethavaram Village, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District are proposed to be acquired, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without conversion of the agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, the proposed acquisition of the petitioner’s lands is illegal, and that though under the impugned notification enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was not dispensed with, no notice has been given to the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit in which it is mentioned that since the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, no enquiry has been conducted and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made. I have perused the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2. A reading of notification dated 12.01.2007 makes it evident that it is categorically mentioned that under Section 3(c) of the Act, respondent No.2 is delegated with the power of holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is averred as under: “The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru has approved the draft notification and draft declaration duly invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act on 12.01.2007 and 25.01.2007 respectively. The said draft notification and draft declaration have been published in the District Gazette, Newspapers and locality.” It is further averred as under: “In view of urgency, enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was dispensed with duly invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued Section 9(3) and 10 notices to all the landowners including the petitioner herein in response to the above notices except the writ petitioner. All the land owners have given consent except the petitioner.” I am surprised at the blatantly incorrect statement made by respondent No.2 which contradicts the contents of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. A person of the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer is not expected to be so callous and negligent in making such an incorrect statement without application of mind and proper verification of the record. Respondent No.2 is cautioned to be careful in future in filing his statements before the Courts. Since declaration under Section 6 of the Act is issued without holding enquiry on account of a complete misreading and misunderstanding of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, declaration dated 25.01.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act is liable to be and is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before proceeding further with the proposed acquisition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3625 of 2007 and WVMP.No.980 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.01.2008 ES