IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19592 of 2008 Between: 1 Nelluri Veeraiah S/o.Varraiah R/o.Gondriayala Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 Amaraboina Subba Rao S/o.Gopaiah Thogarrai Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 Baleboina Palamma W/o.Narsaiah R/o.Thogarrai Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Land Acquisition Officer-cum-District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....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 in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the Notiﬁcation in No G/344/2008 dated 27.7.2008 and LAG No.343/2008 dated 28.6.2008 U/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dispensing with the 5-A enquiry invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act providing an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections and being heard in person and pass any such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of various sub-divisions in survey No.358 of Gondriyala Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District admeasuring Acs.3.12 guntas of land. They feel aggrieved by a notiﬁcation, dated 27.07.2008, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the District Collector, Nalgonda District, the ﬁrst respondent herein. Through the said notiﬁcation, the ﬁrst respondent proposed to acquire the lands of the petitioners for providing house sites under Indiramma Scheme. The petitioners contend that the ﬁrst respondent on the one hand conferred power upon the second respondent to discharge the functions under Section 5-A of the Act and dispensed with enquiry under that very provision on the other. Certain other contentions are also advanced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court held in several cases that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be dispensed with for acquisition of house sites. He further submits that there is internal contradiction in the impugned notification. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners gave consent for acquisition of the land and it is not open to them to challenge the notification. The impugned notiﬁcation which is published in Nalgonda District Gazette, dated 28.07.2008, discloses that an extent of Acs.3.12 guntas of land in survey Nos.358/1, 358/2 and 358/3 is sought to be acquired for providing house sites. The ﬁrst respondent conferred upon the second respondent, the powers and functions of a Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. However, in the next sentence, he invoked the urgency clause under sub- section (4) of Section 17 of the Act and directed that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the case. Therefore, there is a clear contradiction in the notification. Secondly, time and again, this Court, in several cases held that the only relief to the aﬀected persons in the context of compulsory acquisition of land, namely, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be dispensed with indiscriminately. The plea that the petitioners have given consent for acquisition of their lands on payment of certain amount of compensation, can, at the most, pave the way for the second respondent to pass an award under Section 11(2) of the Act, instead of the one under Section11 (1). The consent cannot cure the defect, which is pointed out above. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the notiﬁcation, dated 27.07.2008, in so far as it dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is set aside. The notiﬁcation, as such, shall remain valid and the ﬁrst respondent shall cause an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to be conducted in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.09.2008. kdl