THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.23486 of 2002 DATED: 22.03.2010 Between: T. Subbaiah .. Petitioner And The Government of A.P. rep. by its District Collector, Chittoor District, and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy.No.213/7B of Lakshmambapuram Village, Chittoor Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. While so, the 1st respondent- District Collector, Chittoor District, issued notification dated 25.09.2002, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire the said land of the petitioner for the purpose of providing pathway to Lakshmambapuram Harijanawada, and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. Subsequent thereto, the 1st respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in Vartha Telugu Daily Newspaper on 25.10.2002, declaring that the subject land is required for public purpose and empowering the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, to take possession of the land after 15 days of issuing notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that there are two pathways, providing ingress and egress to Harijanwada, and thus there is no necessity to provide another pathway, by acquiring his land, and that the respondents, leaving the government land available in the village, resorted to notify his land for acquisition, due to some political pressure. It is his further grievance that in his land, proposed to be acquired, there exists a house constructed by him, bearing D.No.5- 101, but the same is not indicated in the 4 (1) notification and, by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, without there being urgency, he was denied the opportunity of raising his objections to the proposed acquisition. The writ petition was admitted and interim stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the impugned notification, was granted way back on 22.11.2002. However, till date, the respondents have not filed counter, rebutting the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. This indicates that there is no urgency to acquire the land of the petitioner, much less by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In the circumstances, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose it of as under: “The impugned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. It is made clear that, if the respondents intend to acquire the land of the petitioner, they shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, duly issuing notice to the petitioner and considering his objections, if any raised, to the proposed acquisition, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 22nd March, 2010 IBL