IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14682 of 2008 Between: Margani Durga Prasada Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o. Vedireswaram Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, At Kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Revenue Divisional officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Ravulapalem Mandal, Ravulapalem, 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the 4(1) Notification dated 6-6-2008 made in Ref.No. G3/3284/08 and published in Andhra Bhoomi, Rajahmundry Edition, dated 17-6-2008 acquiring the land measuring Ac. 0-40 cents in Sy.No. 21 of Lakshmipolavaram Village, Hamlet of Ravulapadu, Ravulapalam Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and malafide and for a consquential direction directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings in the matter. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.LAKSHMANA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.14682 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Acs.0.40 cents in R.S.No.216 of Lakshmipolavaram Village, Hamlet of Ravulapalem, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 16.06.2008. It is stated that after the said purchase, the notification, dated 06.06.2008, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for acquisition of the land purchased by him was published in the local newspaper on 17.06.2008. The said notification, dated 06.06.2008, is challenged in this writ petition inter alia contending that the proposed acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites under Indiramma Programme is arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted. At the outset, it is to be noted that the impugned notification, dated 06.06.2008, itself shows that the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is proposed to be conducted and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram was authorized for the said purpose. In the circumstances, it is always open to the petitioner, who is claiming title to the land in question, to participate in the enquiry and to raise all the objections to the acquisition, as available under law. Hence, interference of this Court at this stage is not warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit all his objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition, within a period of two weeks from today, in which event, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is also open to the petitioner to request an opportunity of personal hearing, in which event, the same shall also be considered following due process of law. No costs. _______________ 09.07.2008 Note: Issue CC in two days. (b/o) VGB