IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5278 of 2004 Between: Kotha Veerabhadramma … Petitioner AND The District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.V. Suresh Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5278 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside notice and declaration dated 16.02.2004 issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). At the hearing, Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections as arbitrary. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it is admitted that enquiry under Section 5A is dispensed with. He, however, sought to justify invocation of urgency clause on the ground that the Government launched a crash programme for distribution of ten lakhs house sites to the poor and weaker sections of the society during 2003-2004, that previously house site pattas were given in the village 20 years back and since then people of Ramapa Yerrampalem are deprived of shelter and that 852 applications, filed seeking house sites, are pending. In Munshi Singh Vs. Union of India[1], while emphasizing the importance of the opportunity to be given to the land owner in an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the Supreme Court held in the following terms: “7. Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. … The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to ﬁle objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A”. In Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai[2] the Supreme Court held that Section 5A is the heart of the Act and that unless the real urgency is involved, which does not brook the delay of holding enquiry, the State cannot invoke urgency clause. Having considered the purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired, namely, providing house sites for poor people, I am of the view that the said purpose is not so urgent as to warrant dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and declaration dated 16.02.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.6891 of 2004 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.08.2008 ES [1]) (1973) 2 SCC 337 [2]) (2005) 7 SCC 627 = JT 2005(8) SC 470