THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2695 of 2008 Date: 12.02.2008 Between: Venigalla Venkata Krishna Rao … Petitioner AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- District Collector, Guntur and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2695 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s land of an extent of Ac.1.00 cents comprised in Survey Nos.156-1 and 157-1 of Dhonepudi Village, Kollur Mandal, Guntur District without following due procedure, as illegal. An extent of Ac.1.00 of the land situated in the Survey Numbers and the Village as mentioned above was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the persons belonging to the weaker sections. After completing enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice purported to have been given in Form-5A. A reading of the said form shows that while declaring that the land is required for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections in Dhonepudi Village, respondent No.1 directed that possession of the land shall be taken within 15 days from the date of publication of Section 9(1) notice by invoking the urgency clauses under Section 17(1) and (2) of the Act. At the hearing, Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned declaration is not in the prescribed format. He submitted that the provisions of Section 17(1) and (2) of the Act are invoked only after the measures stipulated in Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act are completed. He, therefore, pleaded that since the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is not in conformity with the scheme of the Act, the same is liable to be set aside. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the prescribed form to be issued under Section 6 of the Act in Form-5A and the impugned proceeding purported to be issued in Form-5A shows that the latter is not in conformity with the prescribed form. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stage for invoking the urgency clause contained in Section 17(1) and (2) of the Act would set in after publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, taking measures under Sections 7, 8 and after publishing notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. To this extent, the form in which declaration under Section 6 of the Act published is not in conformity with the prescribed form. But for this reason alone, I am not inclined to set aside the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act because no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Instead of setting aside the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, I direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 7, 8 and 9 before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. This shall necessarily mean that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed until the respondents issue notice under Sections 9(1) and (3) of the Act and before following the procedure prescribed under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.3465 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th FEBRUARY, 2008 Note: furnish operative portion by ‘wire’ at party’s costs. B/o kvni