IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13157 of 2008 Between: Syed Shamir, S/o. Syed Hussain, R/o. H.No. 8/74, Ravindra Nagar, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Dist. Collector (Land Acquisition), Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3.The Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), Pendlimarry Mandal, Cuddapah District. 4.The Executive Engineer (R&B), Cuddapah, Cuddapah 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art. 300-A and 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India and consequently set-a-side the 4(1) notification in gazette no. 756 dated 22-4-2008 issued under the Land Acquisition Act with respect of the petitioner's property. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRD.V.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.13157 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notification, dated 22.04.2008, published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire the petitioner’s premises situated in Survey No.204/2 of Rampathadu village, Pendlimarri Mandal, Kadapa District, for the purpose of laying a road at Yogivemana University, Kadapa, is arbitrary and illegal. Admittedly, under the impugned notification, enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is proposed to be conducted and for the said purpose, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District, was authorized. The petitioner states that he submitted his objections on 02.05.2008 before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. However, it is alleged that even without conducting any enquiry and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, the respondents are proceeding with laying of the road and there is every likelihood of dispossessing the petitioner from the premises in question. Having regard to the admitted fact that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act has not been invoked, I am of the opinion that the respondents are not entitled to dispossess the petitioner without considering the objections raised by him and without taking further steps as provided under the Act. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and take further steps following due process of law. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the property of the petitioner without following due process of law. No costs. _______________ 24.06.2008 VGB