IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5991 of 2008 Between: Jogupalli Seethamma W/o.Late Janardhana Rao R/o.Mogalikotturu village Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Srikakulam Srikakulam District 2 The Sub Collector, Tekkali Srikakulam District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing 4(1) Notifications dated 5.2.2008 and 14.2.2008 under the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to drop the Land Acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the Notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dt. 5-2- 2008 and 14-2-2008 purport to acquire lands of the petitioner in Sy.No. 234/7, 234/8, 234/10,234/12 and 235/13 situated at Mogilikotturu Village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.SUBRAMANYA NARASU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing Notifications dated 5.2.2008 and 14.2.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that she is the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.8.08 guntas of land in various survey numbers situated in Mogilikotkuru village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of it. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent-District Collector, dispensed with the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Act by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act and without affording any opportunity to her to put forth her objections issued the impugned Notifications dated 5.2.2008 and 14.2.2008 proposing to acquire her land for the purpose of providing house sites for weaker section under Indiramma Phase-II. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. No doubt, Section 17(4) of the Act enables the Land Acquisition Authorities to dispense with the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5- A of the Act, but the same shall not be resorted to in normal circumstances. As the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act provide a valuable opportunity to the land-owners to put forth their objections against the proposed acquisition, such an opportunity cannot be denied to them unless there is real urgency. The purpose mentioned in the notifications impugned does not indicate that there is such an urgency to invoke urgency clause. Therefore, the action of the respondent- authorities in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be sustained. In Union of India v. Krishna Lal Arneja [1] , the Supreme Court also observed that in the absence of any material to show subjective satisfaction, urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “Section 17 confers extraordinary powers on the authorities under which it can dispense with the normal procedure laid down under Section 5-A of the Act in exceptional case of urgency. Such powers cannot be lightly resorted to except in case of real urgency enabling the Government to take immediate possession of the land proposed to be acquired for public purpose. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be, by itself is not sufficient to take aid of S.17 to use this extraordinary power as use of such power deprives a land owner of his right in relation to immovable property to file objections for the proposed acquisition and it also dispenses with the inquiry under S.5-A of the Act. The authority may have subjective satisfaction of the need for invoking urgency clause under S.17 keeping in mind the nature of the public purpose, real urgency that the situation demands and the time factor i.e, whether taking possession of the property can wait for a minimum period within which the objections could be received from the land owners and the inquiry under S.5-A of the Act could be completed.” In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part and the relevant portions of the impugned Notifications dated 5.2.2008 and 14.2.2008, under which enquiry is dispensed with, are quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition of the petitioner’s land. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 19.03.2008 Note: Furnish copy in five days B/o bcj [1] AIR 2004 sc 3582