IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14129 OF 2007 DATED:21-7-2011 Between: G. Hanumanth Reddy and others … Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: None appeared COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P. for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14129 OF 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, this writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the Notification No.G1/3371/2007 dated 14-6-2007 issued by the respondent No.2 in respect of the petitioners’ land in Survey Nos.382, 383, 383/A, 384 and 350/A situated at Kanayapally Village, Kothakota Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, as illegal and unconstitutional. By the impugned notification, various lands including those belonging to the petitioners were acquired for rehabilitation and resettlement of the persons who were displaced under Kanayapally Balancing Rerservoir. One of the main grounds on which the said notification has been questioned is that the respondents have invoked urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ‘the Act’) and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. This Court by order dated 16-7-2007 granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioners. In my opinion, the respondents are not justified in invoking the urgency clause in a case of this nature where the purpose of acquisition is only to provide alternative land in favour of the displaced persons under the project for their rehabilitation and resettlement. At any rate, the very purpose of dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is not served with the intervention by this Court by granting interim stay of dispossession and long lapse of time after such intervention. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents to the extent of dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is declared as illegal. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, pass an order thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioners before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.V.M.P. No.24 of 2008 and W.P.M.P. No.17729 of 2007 filed by the respective parties are disposed of. _______________________ (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 21-7-2011 bnr