IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5532 of 2008 Between: 1 Eeram Reddygari Harinath Reddy, S/o. E. Venkatramana Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 G. Narasimhulu, S/o. Karirappa, R/o. Avulavaripalle Village, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 Dugasani Raja Reddy, S/o. Subbi Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 C. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 Dugasani Mahadeva Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 P. Narayana Reddy, S/o. Gangi Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 7 Vanuku Venkataramana Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 8 Dugasani Siva Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 9 Bodigutta Jayaram, S/o. Lakshmanna, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 10 Dugasani Ramesh Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 11 Dugasani Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 12 Dugasani Narasa Reddy, S/o. Vemanarayana Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 13 Kodigadda Vemanna, S/o. Lakshmanna, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. 14 M. Obul Reddy, S/o. Gopal Reddy, R/o. Chilakavaripalle, H/o. Bodevaripalle, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & Land Acquisition, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Land Acquisition Officer & The Revenue Divisional Office Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 4 The Tahsildar, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor 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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in dispensing the Section 5(A) enquiry without following the procedure contemplated under the Act is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the 4(1) Notification issued by the 2nd respondent herein in Proceedings in Roc No. G1/1194/2008, dated 24-1-2008 published in Surya Daily News Paper dated 26-1-2008 so far as the petitioners are concerned. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MD.SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in dispensing with enquiry which is to be conducted under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), as arbitrary and illegal and consequently set aside the Notification dated 24.1.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioners assert that they are the absolute owners and possessors of various extents of agricultural wet lands in various survey numbers situated at Bodevaripalli village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District, and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of them. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that the 2nd 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 them to put forth their objections issued the impugned Notification dated 24.1.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire their lands for the purpose of digging Handri Neeva Sujala Sravanthi (H.N.S.S.) Branch Canal, Punganur, 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 notification 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 portion of the impugned Notification dated 24.1.2008, under which enquiry is dispensed with, is 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 petitioners’ lands. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 14.03.2008 bcj [1] AIR 2004 sc 3582