IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.6096 of 2008 Between: 1. Moparthi Vishnu Mohana Rao, s/o. Punnaiah Chowdary, r/o Kolachanakota [V], Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Moparthi Vani, w/o Moparthi Vishnu Mohana Rao, r/o Kolachanakota [V], Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to [Revenue] Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Prakasam District. 4. Tahsildar, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notification in Rc.No.G2/2036/2007, dated 28-02-2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by second respondent as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, vitiated by political malafides and contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently quash the said notification and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners. : Mr. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP for LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER: - This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to quash the notification dated 28-02-2008 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. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 3. 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 petitioners for providing house sites to weaker sections 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. 4. 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 landowners 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 respondent-authorities in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be sustained. I n 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.” 5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part at the stage of admission and the portion of the impugned notification dated 28-02- 2008, by which enquiry is dispensed with, is quashed. The petitioners are permitted to file their objections and on receipt of their objections, the Land Acquisition Officer may hold an enquiry into the said objections after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from out of the lands in question. ________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Dt.19-03-2008 GLV ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER Copy to: 1. The Principal Secretary to [Revenue] Land Acquisition Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. 2CCs to 6. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] AIR 2004 SC 3582