THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1692 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of Acs.32.65 cents of land in various survey numbers of Santhavelore Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. An extent of Acs.3.62 cents out of it, in various survey numbers, was notified on 25.05.2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), for the purpose of providing house sites. The names of the previous owners from whom the petitioner purchased the land were mentioned. On the same day, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Both the notification and the declaration were published in the Gazette on 27.05.2006 and 29.05.2006 respectively. The petitioner submits that the land that is proposed to be acquired is at the entrance of the remaining land and that there was absolutely no justification for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is also alleged that in between the existing Harijanwada and the acquired land, there is vast extent of vacant land available for acquisition. Certain other grounds were also urged. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the names of the pattadars recorded in the revenue records were mentioned in the notification. According to them, the urgency clause had to be invoked in view of the impending necessity to provide house sites. The possession of the land is said to have been taken on 19.01.2007. It is also stated that the petitioner had access from a different place to the rest of its land. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The first question that needs to be taken up is as to whether there was justification for the respondents in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Time and again, this Court held that the only remedy available to a citizen namely, the one to make a representation under Section 5-A of the Act against the proposed compulsory acquisition, cannot be denied indiscriminately. It is not as if the necessity to provide house sites to the poor has arisen overnight or that conducting of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act within a month would change the situation drastically. Being conscious of the indiscriminate invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act, the A.P. State Legislature has added sub-section (5) (b) to that very Section. According to this, where enquiry under Section 5-A is dispensed with by invoking urgency clause, but possession of the land is not taken within three months, Section 5-A of the Act shall apply as if it was not dispensed with at all. In the instant case, the notification and the declaration were simultaneously issued on 25.05.2006 and published within two days. Possession was not taken for more than six months. Even if one goes by the version of the respondents, it was only on 19.01.2007 that the possession was taken. They could not have done so, except by holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Therefore, the respondents have clearly violated Section 17 (5) (b) of the Act and thereby, the very declaration under Section 6 of the Act has become untenable. This Court granted interim stay on 01.02.2007 and hardly there was any scope for the respondents either to develop the land or to induct third parties into possession. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 25.05.2006, published on 29.05.2006 is set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in accordance with law, if they wish to proceed with the acquisition. They shall issue notice to the petitioner, if they choose to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.04.2010. kdl