THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.257 of 2008 Date: 21.01.2008 Between: Chapala Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad & another. … Petitioners AND Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri B. Adinarayana Rao Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.257 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire an extent of Ac.3.36 cents in Sy.No.235/5 part of Maruproluvaripalem Village of Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District in pursuance of notification dated 12.01.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 30.11.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to notification dated 12.01.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, wherein it is mentioned that the land in question is proposed to be acquired to provide house sites to weaker sections residing within the limits of Asodivaripalem Gram Panchayat. He had also drawn my attention to declaration dated 30.11.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act, wherein it is mentioned that the land is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the persons belonging to weaker sections residing in Maruproluvaripalem Village. Learned counsel also argued that notice dated 30.10.2007 issued under Section 5A of the Act was served on petitioner No.1 on 09.11.2007 and that he made an endorsement on the notice itself stating that as his mother’s first death anniversary was being performed on 11.11.2007, he was not in a position to attend the enquiry scheduled to be held on 10.11.2007. He submitted that without adjourning the enquiry, respondent No.2 proceeded with the same. Learned counsel also submitted that in respect of Maruproluvaripalem Village a separate notice under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued seeking to acquire different lands for providing house sites to the weaker sections of that village. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons: i) There is material variation between the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and that while in the notification the purpose of acquisition is mentioned as providing house sites to the residents of Asodivaripalem Gram Panchayat, in the declaration the name of the village is mentioned as Maruproluvaripalem. It is not permissible for the respondents to change the purpose in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act from the one which is mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Section 6 declaration is therefore inherently defective, and ii) In the face of inconvenience expressed by petitioner No.1 to attend enquiry on account of his mother’s ceremony scheduled to be held on the day following the scheduled enquiry, respondent Nos.2 and 3, in my opinion, ought to have postponed the enquiry in order to give a reasonable opportunity to him to put forth his objections. As regards the objection relating to notification already issued in respect of Maruproluvaripalem Village, it is open to the petitioners to raise the said objection before respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5A of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, declaration dated 30.11.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act afresh after giving the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.267 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.01.2008 ES