THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22029 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to be the owner of a plot, measuring 383 Sq.yards, in Door No.15-7-21, of Ramakrishnaraopet of Kakinada, East Godavari District. The District Collector, East Godavari, the 1st respondent herein, issued a notification dated 10.9.2008, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”), proposing to acquire the said plot, for the purpose of smooth ﬂow of traﬃc. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, by invoking the urgency clause, under Section 17(4) of the Act. The petitioner states that there is absolutely no necessity for acquisition of the land, much less any justiﬁcation for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The very purpose mentioned in the notiﬁcation, under Section 4(1) of the Act, for acquiring the land, is vague and uncertain. The purpose mentioned in the notification reads as under: “Smooth ﬂow of the traﬃc and to divert the traﬃc from Bankpeta & Rangampeta through the road running on the eastern side of Municipal Corporation oﬃce building and upto Ramakrishnaraopet.” It is not stated as to how and in what manner the property of the petitioner would be put to use. The allegation of the petitioner that the acquisition is resorted to, only with a view to accommodate the church people of the locality, at the instance of the MLA, becomes relevant. Further, without even being aware of the exact purpose, the 1st respondent has chosen to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The exercise was undertaken in a very mechanical manner. It is not as if the urgency for acquisition is so acute, that it cannot brook the delay for few months, by which time, the enquiry under Section 5-A can be conducted. The course of action adopted by the 1st respondent, in proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner, cannot be countenanced in law. This court is of the view that an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, needs to be held, and at the end of enquiry, the 1st respondent by himself shall be under obligation to justify the need independently, without relying upon the report of any subordinate. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the 1st respondent shall hold the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It shall be open to the petitioner to raise objections, both as to the legality of notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, as well as the justiﬁcation for acquisition. The 1st respondent shall pass a reasoned order by himself, dealing with all the objections raised by the petitioner. It hardly needs any mention that the property of the petitioner shall not be interfered in any manner, till the acquisition assumes ﬁnality, in case, the objections raised by the petitioner are not accepted. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 30th September 2008 PAN