IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24610 of 1995 Dated 29th August, 2006 Between M. Shanti Ramulu and another … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents. ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the acquisition of land in an extent of Ac.3.26 cents covered by Survey No.12 of B.Thandrapadu village, Kurnool Mandal and District as illegal and arbitrary. The above piece of land along with large chunk of land admeasuring 160 acres was requisitioned by the Sri Krishnadevaraya University for the purpose of development of its post-graduate center at Kurnool. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the A.P. Extraordinary gazette on 5.4.1994 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 13.6.1994. The acquisition is questioned mainly on the ground that the said purpose of land is not needed at all, and, it is being used by the petitioners for agricultural purposes. It is also stated that though urgency clause is invoked under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 80 per cent of the compensation is not paid in terms of Section 17 (3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Further ground also is urged that though urgency clause is invoked while issuing the notification, however, possession was not taken within the period of 90 days. As such, there is no reason to dispense with the enquiry. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the above said piece of land is the assigned land to landless poor persons, who were the predecessor- in-title of the petitioners. As such, petitioners have no right either to question the notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act or to seek payment of 80% compensation, as claimed by them. It is not in dispute that the piece of land, of which the petitioners claim that they are owners and possessors, is notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. When the land of the petitioners was notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not open for the respondents to plead that the petitioners have no right to question the notification. Whether the said piece of land originally is an assigned land or not is a matter, which cannot be gone into in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Admittedly, no steps have been taken by the respondents to evict the petitioners by due process of law on the ground that the said piece of land is an assigned land and the same was transferred in contravention of the statutory provisions. In that view of the matter, it cannot be pleaded by the respondents that the petitioners have no right to question the notification. At the same time, non-payment of compensation to the extent of 80% is no ground to invalidate the notifications. In view of the provision under Section 17(3-A) of the Act, compensation to the extent of 80% has to be tendered at the time of taking possession. In this case, though notification was issued on 5.4.1994 and declaration was published on 13.6.1994, even before the possession was taken by the respondents, the petitioners have approached this court and obtained interim orders. It is not in dispute that the petitioners continued to be in possession during the pendency of the writ petition also. With reference to the plea of the petitioners that though urgency clause was invoked, possession was not taken within the period of 90 days, or, within a reasonable time, it is a matter, which deserves consideration. Though notification was issued on 5.4.1994 and declaration was published on 13.6.1994, possession of the land was not taken from the petitioners for 1½ years. Of course, after filing of the writ petition, this court granted interim orders only on 2.11.1995. But, the fact remains that for considerable time, the possession was not taken having invoked the urgency clause. The very fact that the possession was not taken for a considerable time itself speaks that there was no such urgency so as to dispense with enquiry, as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act and to conduct enquiry within a period of 30 days, within which time, objections could have been considered and disposed of. Having regard to the above said facts and also on the ground that this court has granted interim orders on 2.11.1995 and the said orders continued all along, I set aside the declaration dated 13.6.1994 and dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and take further steps accordingly. It is open for the petitioners to raise all such objections available in law in the enquiry to be conducted. Subject to above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ 29.8.2006 (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) VR