THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22655 of 2006 DATED: 25.03.2010 Between: Pentapati Subbayya and another .. Petitioners And The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner and possessor of the lands in an extent of 0.25 cents in Sy.No.117/1 and 0.09 cents in Sy.No.117/2 and Petitioner No.2 claims to be the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of 0.69 cents in Sy.No.117/2 situated at K. Veerampalem Village, Rangampeta Mandal of East Godavari District. According to them, they are small farmers and, except the said lands, they do not own any other lands. They are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire their lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) and resorting to take advance possession of their lands, by paying 80% compensation. It is their grievance that no notice of any kind at any stage was issued to them regarding the proposed acquisition, that no enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted, enabling them to raise their objections to the proposed acquisition, and no award enquiry was even conducted, and they came to know about the acquisition proceedings only after going through the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, and the consequential notice of even date, issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, which were displayed at their lands, directing the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer to take advance possession of their lands, by paying 80% of compensation, and asking them to appear before him with necessary documents in support of their ownership over the subject lands to receive that 80% compensation. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 01.11.2006, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent, including dispossession of the petitioners from the subject lands. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners, was published as per the procedure contemplated under the Act and, in view of urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, under Section 17 (4) of the Act, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 26.06.2006. It is further stated that notices in Form-6, under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act, calling the petitioners to attend award enquiry, were served on the petitioners and notice in Form-7, under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act, was published as per the provisions of the Act, but the petitioners neither attended the award enquiry nor filed any representation before the 2nd respondent. Further, it is stated that, in view of urgency, advance possession of the lands was proposed to be taken and hence the 2nd respondent passed orders on 11.10.2006 directing the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer to take advance possession of the lands, by paying 80% of compensation, and asking the petitioners to appear before him with necessary documents in support of their ownership over the subject lands to receive that 80% compensation, and the said order dated 11.10.2006 and notice in Form-9, under Section 12 (2) of the Act, were sent to the petitioners, but they have refused to take the same and as such the same were displayed at the lands, as per the provisions of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Admittedly, the purpose for which the lands of the petitioners were proposed to be acquired is to provide house sites to weaker sections and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. In identical case in Butchi Sitayamma Garu and others v. Collector, East Godavari District and another[1], where the lands were also proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections, this Court has categorically held that providing house sites to weaker sections is an on going policy of the State and it is not an overnight decision nor the economic plight of the people, a suddenly occurring emergency, and thus invocation of urgency and dispensing with the salutary process of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, in such circumstances, is arbitrary and, therefore, quashed the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. In view of the above settled position of law, the action of the respondents in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, by invoking urgency clause, for acquisition of the subject lands for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned declaration dated 26.06.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act and all the consequential proceedings are set aside. It is made clear that, if the lands of petitioners are still required to be acquired, the respondents shall conduct necessary enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, duly issuing notice to the petitioners and considering their objections, if any raised, to the proposed acquisition, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 25th March, 2010 IBL [1] 2008 (6) ALD (NOC 66)