IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.11369 of 2005 Between: Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill, Door No.36-4-22, Temple Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Reptd., by its Partner G.Srikrishna Shiva Rani, W/o.Ramakrishna Satyanarayana Chowdary, 45 yrs, Business, Kakinada, East Godavari District. … Petitioner And The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) by notification dated 12-4-2005 in order to acquire a portion of the land forming part of Door Nos.36-4-22 and 36-4-21 of Kakinada Block No.2, Kakinada Urban Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. By the impugned proceedings, the property of the petitioner, along with other properties, is proposed to be acquired. Though the petitioner has not filed a copy of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is admitted that in view of the purported urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the purpose for which the acquisition is proposed to be made, viz., for providing approach road to temple street from the second bridge, invocation of urgency provision under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5- A is illegal. This Court by order dated 16-6-2005 granted interim stay. In view of the same, the proposed work has not been under taken. In view of long lapse of time, the very purpose of dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5-A lost its relevance. Even otherwise, considering the nature and purpose for which the acquisition is proposed to be made i.e., for providing approach road to temple street from the second bridge, the same is not so urgent that warrants dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. As held by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai[1], Section 5-A of the Act provides for valuable opportunity to the landowners to raise objections against the proposed acquisition. Unless the nature and purpose of acquisition is so urgent that the delay in holding enquiry cannot be brooked, there is no justification in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, declaration dated 12-4-2005 issued under Section 6 of the Act to the extent of acquisition of the land of the petitioner, is quashed. The part of the notification dated 12-4-2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, by which enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is dispensed with, is set aside. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 18-6-2008 MNR 1) (2005) 7 SCC 627