IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14415 of 2008 Between: Chilukuri Durgamahesh, S/o. Sreenivas, rep by his mother and natural Guardian, Ch. Jansi Rani, W/o. Sreenivas, Aged about 31 yrs. Occ : Housewife, R/o. Ravulapadu Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari 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 will be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Land Acquisition Notification in Ref. G3/3284/08 issued under Sec. 4(1) of L.A. Act, by the 1st respondent seeking to acquire the land admeasuring Ac. 0-14 cents in Survey No. 161/1 and Ac. 0-97 cents in Survey No. 161/3, situated at Ravulapadu Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District and also all consequential proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and violative of Art. 14, 19(g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said notification including the consequential proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14415 of 2008 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioner is sought to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of allotting house sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma Programme. The notification dated 06-06-2008 published under Section 4(1) of the Act shows that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act has not been invoked and therefore, the respondents are bound to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that without conducting any such enquiry, the respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the land in his possession forcibly. Hence, this writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and since admittedly, the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act has not been invoked, it is not open to the respondents to interfere with the property of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever without conducting the necessary enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and without taking further steps as provided under law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question without following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 07-07-2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire B/o KLP