IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24574 of 2004 Between: 1 Pullepu Trinadha Babji, S/o. Late Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, R/o. Tedepalligudem. 2 Kaigala Lakshmikantham, W/o. Krishnaiah, R/o. Tadepalligudem. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, W.G.District, Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divsiional Officer, Eluru. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tadepalligudem W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Call for records in ROC.No. G2.4525/2004 dt. 15.9.2004 pertaining to the acquisition of lands and residential houses situate in the locality known as in Thuduplulammathalli-Karagattu area and issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus and consequently set aside the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as arbitrary discriminatory and illegal insofar as the land of petitioners 1 and 2 admeasuring Ac. 3.69 cents in R.S.No.386 and 0.89 cents in R.S.No.385/3 of Kunchenapalli Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West godavari District are concerned, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.S.C.RANGAPPA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The two petitioners claimed to be owners of lands in R.S.No. 385/3 and 386 of Kunchenpalli village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari district. They assail the notification issued by the respondents for acquisition of their lands for the stated purpose of constructing a second Summer Storage Tank to serve Tadepalligudem and Pentapdu mandals. Inter alia the notification is assailed on the ground that urgency was irrationally invoked and the salutary process of notice and enquiry under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was dispensed with, absent any justification. The notification is also assailed on the ground that the local publication of the substance was not done in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent dated 23-03-2005, it is stated that the draft notification and draft declarations under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published in the Gazette on 30-09-2004 and 05-11-2004 respectively and also published in two daily newspapers as per the particulars set out in paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit; local publication was also done. With regard to the invocation of urgency, paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit states that the construction of Summer Storage Tank was urgent and therefore urgency was invoked. Even though the draft notification and draft declaration were issued in September/November, 2004, paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit admits that possession was not taken. Discernibly, since urgency has been invoked, possession ought to have been taken along with draft declaration after depositing 80% of the compensation as mandated under Section 17 (3)(A1) of the Act. This has not been done. The claim of urgency is therefore belied. Further, it is not as though the proposals for construction of the Summer Storage Tank have been conceived, evaluated and put into execution overnight. There should have been serious discussions with various relevant authorities with regard to the need of construction of a Summer Storage Tank, assessment as to the area required and the technical evaluation, discussions as to the extent of funds required and the mobilization of the resources for the execution of Summer Storage Tank as well as mobilization of funds for acquisition of land for the purpose of executing the Summer Storage Tank. In the light of such detailed processes required for execution of a Summer Storage Tank, the contention of the second respondent in the counter affidavit that the matter was urgent and therefore urgency was invoked, is seen to be a misconceived plea. In the considered view of this Court, the invocation of urgency clause was unjustified and irrational. Accordingly, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act in Roc.No. G2/4525/204 dated 15-09-2004 is quashed insofar it pertains to the lands of the petitioners in survey Nos.385/3 and 386 of Kunchenpalli village of an extent of Ac.01-04 cents and 03-93cents respectively. The respondents are however at liberty to issue a notice to the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act soliciting objections to the proposals for acquisition of the lands. If any such objections are lodged within the time specified in such notice, the competent authority shall consider and pass an order duly considering the objections and shall communicate the decision so taken, to the petitioners. Till then no further steps for declaration under Section 6 of the Act shall be taken. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 18-03-2008 Pvks/*