THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4755 of 2007 ORDER: The District Collector, West Godavari, 2nd respondent herein initiated proposals for acquisition of land, for providing house sites to the landless poor in Pedapadu Village. An extent of Ac.13.85 cents in various survey numbers of the village was chosen for it. After undertaking preliminary exercise, the Collector published notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) on 05.07.2006. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14.07.2006. Notices under Section 9 and 10 of the Act were also issued. The petitioner challenges the notifications referred to above on several grounds. It is stated that the lands are not suitable for house sites and the Village Committee itself stated that only Ac.6.00 is sufficient for house sites. The petitioner also raised an objection for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. The particulars of publication of notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act are furnished. It is stated that the objections raised by the petitioner were examined and the Village Committee itself decided to take possession of Ac.6.00 only. According to the respondents, a decision was taken to exclude Ac.7.85 cents of land from acquisition and restrict the same to Ac.6.00. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. A perusal of the record of this case discloses that an extent of Ac.13.85 cents of land was identified for acquisition without proper verification as to the actual number of beneficiaries. Added to that, notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were published almost simultaneously. Various aspects involved in the matter would have come to light, had the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act been held. Further, the invocation of Section 17(4) of the Act became untenable, since possession of the land was not taken within three months from the date of publication of the notification. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that after thorough enquiry of the matter, it has been decided to restrict the acquisition only to Ac.6.00 of land. The fact however remains that no notification withdrawing the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, as regards Ac.7.85 cents was published. Across the Bar, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that alternative lands have been acquired and house sites have been provided. The discussion undertaken above discloses that a serious infirmity has crept into the notifications. The first is that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act became untenable because the possession of the land was not taken within three months even after the urgency clause was invoked. The second is that more than half of the extent proposed for acquisition was found to be not necessary. In a way, it discloses non- application of mind, before the power under the Statute was exercised. At this stage, it becomes untenable for the respondents to proceed with the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the notifications under challenge are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ________ 02.06.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4755 of 2007 Date: 02.06.2010 JSU