IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13520 of 2002 Between: Singana Narasimhulu & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Cuddapah & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K. Shankaraiah Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13520 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), as illegal. The land admeasuring Ac.0.79 cents in various survey numbers of Thimmayagari Palli Village was notiﬁed for acquisition by the respondents vide notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) and published in Gazette on 20.05.2002. A draft declaration under Section 6 was published in the Gazette on 22.05.2002. The petitioners questioned initiation of these acquisition proceedings on various grounds. At the hearing, Sri K. Shankaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the substance of the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) and also declaration under Section 6 of the Act has not been published in the locality. He drew my attention to paragraph 7 of the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer and Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, Rajampet, which shows that in the table given by him mentioning the various dates on which the notiﬁcation and declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 respectively were published in the Gazette and daily newspapers, Sl.No.4 pertains to publication of substance in the locality and the same is kept blank both in publication of notiﬁcation and also declaration. The counter is therefore conspicuously silent on this crucial aspect. Therefore, ordinarily the acquisition proceedings are liable to be declared as invalid. However, the petitioners failed to question the validity of the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1). Therefore, I am not inclined to set aside the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1). As the respondents failed to show that the substance of the draft declaration in locality has been published, the impugned draft declaration is quashed. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act before seeking to proceed further. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16831 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.10.2008 ES