IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17817 of 2008 Between: Kallakuri Surya Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Late Pattabhi Rama Swamy, R/o D.No. 9-36, Angara Village, Main Road, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep by Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 3 Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 The Tahsildar, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the possession of the petitioner without holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act after giving him an opportunity of hearing and following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. In his aﬃdavit, the petitioner stated that under notiﬁcation, dated 04.07.2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land admeasuring Acs.8.84 cents in Survey No.321 of Srikrishnapatnam Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District is proposed to be acquired; that respondent No.3 issued notice, dated 21.07.2008 under Section 5A of the Act calling for objections from the petitioner and that he submitted his objections on 30.07.2008. He further stated that without ﬁxing a date for enquiry and disposing of his objections, the subordinates of the respondents came to the land on 09.08.2008 and started taking measurements and that in spite of his objections they threatened to dispossess him. Except the ipse dixit of the petitioner, no material is produced to substantiate his contention that the respondents have been seeking to dispossess him without disposing of his objections. It hardly needs any emphasis that when once the procedure under the Act is set in motion, the respondents cannot bypass the said procedure and dispossess the landowner. When once the objections were received by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, it is his obligation to consider after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing and dispose of the same before seeking to proceed with the proposed acquisition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.23160 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th AUGUST, 2008. kvni