IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15306 of 2004 Between: Gandeti Sudershan Rao, S/o. Subba rao, Hindu, R/o. Sirivada (V), Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3 Kammila Subba Rao, S/o. Nagabhushanam, Sirivada V), R/o. Siriwada,Peddapuram, E.G. District. 4 Inukonda Suryanarayana, S/o. Veerraju, Hindu, Sirivada V), R/o. Siriwada,Peddapuram, E.G. 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Notiﬁcation issued by the 1st respondent vide Ref.No. G2/7483/2003, dt. 26-12-2003 as illegal, null and vide Ref. No. G2/7483/2003, dt. 26-12-2003 as illegal, null and void and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 desist from acting thereupon. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.15306 OF 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to set aside notiﬁcation dated 26.12.2003 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal. The land admeasuring Ac.0.31 cents in Sy.No.3/4A of Sirivada Village of Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District standing in the name of the father of the petitioner was notiﬁed for acquisition by respondent No.1 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor. By the said notiﬁcation, the enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The petitioner ﬁled the writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in dispensing with the enquiry on the ground that the purpose of acquisition as indicated above does not warrant invocation of urgency provision contained in Section 17(4) of the Act. This Court on 27.8.2004 granted stay of dispossession of the petitioner. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the land of the petitioner is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the poor persons. The Supreme Court repeatedly held that the Act being expropriatory in nature, the State and its functionaries shall not invoke the urgency clause lightly and dispense with enquiry which is a valuable right conferred on the land-owners to ﬁle objections to the proposed acquisition (see Munshi Singh v. Union of India[1] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others[2]). Since the proposed Acquisition is for the purpose of providing house sites, I am in agreement with the plea of the petitioner that the said purpose is not so urgent as to warrant dispensing with of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. On the above premise, the writ petition is allowed by declaring that the impugned notiﬁcation to the extent it dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is illegal. If declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made and further steps including passing of an award have been taken, all those proceedings are declared as invalid. The respondents are given liberty to proceed with the proposed acquisition by holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. No costs. ________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 26th AUGUST, 2008. Tsr To 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3. G.P. for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, (OUT) 4. Two C.D. copies. [1] AIR 1973 SC 1150 [2] 2005 (7) SCC 627