THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15727 of 2006 Dated:02.07.2010 Between: V.Naga Triveni. ...Petitioner And The District Collector (LA), Krishna District, At Machilipatnam, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15727 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner statedly is owner of land admeasuring Acs.2.69 cents comprised in R.S.Nos.121/1 & 2 at Neppalli Village of Kankipadu Mandal in Krishna District. The first respondent issued notification on 02.06.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), proposing to acquire the land for providing house sites to weaker sections. Purporting to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and Section 17(4) of the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was assailed before this Court as invalid. By an order dated 20.06.2006 in W.P.No.12267 of 2006 this Court while finding fault with the exercise under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, disposed of the writ petition directing the concerned Officials to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act before issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that without complying with the directions of this Court, the first respondent published declaration on 05.07.2006, which is assailed in the writ petition. Counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the order of this Court was received on 26.07.2006, but in the meanwhile, the impugned declaration was issued. After receiving the order of the High Court notices of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act were issued on 05.08.2006 which were served on the petitioner on 10.08.2006. Therefore, the respondents contend that there is compliance with the orders of this Court. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) as well as perusing the order of this Court in W.P.No.12267 of 2006, this Court is convinced that the respondents were directed to issue notice of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, consider objections, then publish declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Even before receiving the copy of the order of this Court, the impugned declaration was issued, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is compliance with the orders of this Court. As the controversy is limited to this aspect only, this Court is convinced that the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 05.07.2006 cannot be sustained. The same is liable to be set aside. In the result, for the above reason, the impugned declaration is set aside giving liberty to the second respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in accordance with law and submit report to the District Collector (Land Acquisition), who shall take decision thereupon as to whether to proceed with the acquisition proceedings or not. This exercise may be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.07.2010 vs