IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18267 of 2004 Between: 1 G. Laksminarayana, S/o. Rajaiah, R/o. 3-39, Uppal, R.R. District. 2 Maryala Srisailam, S/o. Ramulu, R/o. 3-39, Uppal, R.R. District. 3 Ankannagari Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Satti Reddy, R/o. 3-39, Uppal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy at Hyderabad. 3 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Paigah Palace, Secunderabad. 4 The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, HUDA, Paigah Palace, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings LA/113/2004, dt. 27-3-2004 issued by respondents as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18267 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings in LA/113/2004, dated 27.3.2004 issued by the 4th respondent, whereby and whereunder the 4th respondent issued notice in Form No.7 under Section 9(1) and (10) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners for public purpose, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is the owner, possessor and enjoyer of land to an extent of Ac.16-1/2 gts. in Survey No.129/2, the second petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.19 gts. in Survey No.137 and Ac.0-4 gts. in Survey No.138 and the third petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.1-33 gts. in Survey No.140. All the lands are situated at Uppalbhagat Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The case of the petitioners is that they are in possession and enjoyment of the above lands, utilizing the same for agriculture and horticulture purposes. On an earlier occasion, when the 3rd respondent sought to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands, they filed W.P.No.2485 of 2004 and this Court in W.P.M.P.No.3284 of 2004 issued interim directions on 11.2.2004 directing the respondents not to dispossess them from their lands without following the due process of law. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned notice dated 27.3.2004 under Section 9(1) and (10) of the Land Acquisition Act in proceedings No.LA/113/2004, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners. Originally, proceedings were initiated for acquisition of a total extent of land admeasuring Ac.7-6 1/4 gts. in Uppalbhagat village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of construction of a sewerage treatment plant at Nallacheruvu. Invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, enquiry under section 5-A was dispensed with. The petitioners contend that though the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 15.3.2004, the respondents have not taken up any work relating to construction of sewerage treatment plant. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that though Ac.7-6 1/4 gts. of land was notified under Section 4(1) of the Act on 15.3.2004 for acquisition, subsequently, an extent of more than Ac.3.00 of land was deleted from the acquisition proceedings. Though there is no urgency to acquire the lands, invoking the urgency clause, the enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with. The petitioners further contend that since major part of the land was exempted from acquisition subsequent to dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the exemption is contrary to the scheme of acquisition and the authorities have adopted such a course to benefit some of the land- owners. 4. There is no necessity to go into the above aspects in detail since the only question to be considered is, whether the respondent-authorities are justified in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act? 5. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, that an extent of Ac.2.25 gts. of land was deleted from the acquisition and an extent of Ac.4.22 gts of land was considered sufficient for the purpose. However, an extent of Ac.3.19 3/4 gts. of land was only taken possession by the respondents, and, according to the counter-affidavit, the remaining land required for the purpose could not be taken possession due to the interim directions passed by this Court. Be that as it may, the reason stated in the counter-affidavit for deletion of the land to an extent of Ac.2.25 gts. from acquisition is that though a final enquiry was conducted under Section 17(4) of the Act, since some of the land owners, having small extents of land, made representations seeking exemption of their lands from the acquisition, a report was called for from the Mandal Revenue Officer and on a consideration of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, it was decided to delete an extent of Ac.2.25 gts of land from the acquisition proceedings, as the remaining land would be sufficient for the purpose. This Court is not inclined to go into the details of the same, because, prima facie, the action of the respondent-authorities in deleting an extent of Ac.2.25 gts. out of Ac.7-6 ¼ gts. acquired under Section 4(1) notification dated 15.3.2004 itself is arbitrary and illegal, as the respondents have acted in a manner contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act. Once the urgency clause under Section 17(4) is invoked, and enquiry under Section 5-A is dispensed with, the question of deleting certain lands by entertaining representations from some land owners does not arise. If this is so, the enquiry under section 5-A of the Act could not have been dispensed with by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. 6. Under those circumstances, the proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act on 15.3.2004 insofar as dispensing with the conducting of 5-A enquiry by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act is arbitrary and illegal. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. However, this will not preclude the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and taking further action in the matter under law. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU 22nd June, 2009 PNV HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18267 of 2004 DT.22.06.2009