IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15768 of 2008 Between: M. Lokeswar Rao, S/o. Venkateswar Rao, R/o. Ananthavarrapadu Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur District, Guntur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur District, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Notification issued by the 1st respondent vide R.C.No. 1831/08-G1 dt. 26-6-2008, published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily Newspaper on 3-7-2008 proposing to acquire an extent of Ac. 2.00 cents situated in Sy.No. 71/2 of Anantavarappau Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and consequently set aside the same, and to grant Counsel for the Petitioner: K.ARUNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15768 of 2008 O R D E R: By notification dated 26-06-2008 published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), Ac.2.00 cents of land belonging to the petitioner situated in Sy.No.71/2 of Anantavarappadu village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur District was sought to be acquired for providing house sites under Indiramma scheme. A perusal of the said notification itself shows that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was proposed to be conducted and the Revenue Divisional Officer was authorized for the said purpose. The said notification is challenged in this writ petition contending inter alia that the land in question being wet land, which is the only source of livelihood of petitioner ought not to have been acquired for the purpose of providing house sites. It is also contended that the land in question is situated far away from the village and it is not suitable for the house sites. These are all the objections which could have been raised in the enquiry proposed to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Act in which event, the same would have been considered, if necessary, after inspection of the site in question and appropriate orders would have been passed. Since admittedly, the urgency clause has not been invoked and an opportunity is given to the petitioner to raise his objections to the acquisition, interference by this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise his objections to the acquisition within a period of two weeks from today. If any such objections are raised, the same shall be considered and appropriate further steps shall be taken following due process of law. Till such time, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question in any manner whatsoever. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 22-07-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o KLP