THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.4360, 4987, 4991, 5052, 5288, 5674, 6045 and 6569 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: In this batch of writ petitions, a notification dated 14.02.2007 issued by the District Collector, Krishna under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is challenged. Through the said notification, the Collector proposed to acquire Ac.102.39 cents of land in various survey numbers of Ambapuram Village ‘for development of township’ by the Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali and Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (for short ‘the Authority’). The petitioners challenge the said notification on several grounds. Across the Bar, it is stated that the purpose mentioned in the notification is vague and uncertain and the valuable rights of the petitioners over their lands, which constitute their livelihood cannot be taken away on the basis of such notifications. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court on Gajjela Narsimha Reddy vs. Collector, Ranga Reddy District[1]. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed explaining the necessity of the acquisition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Standing Counsel for the Authority. It is mentioned in the impugned notification that the land is acquired ‘for the purpose of development of township’. Though that may constitute the pubic purpose, the authorities were required to be specific and clear as to the nature of the project and other particulars thereof. The Supreme Court held that if the purpose mentioned in the notification is vague, the acquisition proceedings get vitiated. In the recent past, this Court dealt with the identical question in respect of proposed acquisition for the benefit of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority i n Gajjela Narsimha Reddy’s case (1 supra). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in which the purpose was mentioned as “development of township” was held to be contrary to law. Accordingly, the notification was set aside. The judgment applies in all its force to the facts of the present case also. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned notification is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 04.06.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.4360, 4987, 4991, 5052, 5288, 5674, 6045 and 6569 of 2007 Date: 04.06.2010 JSU [1] 2008(5) ALD 302