IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 11970 of 1999 Between: 1 Kuchipudi Kesava Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, Raghudevapuram (Village), Seethanagaram (Mandal), East Godavari District, 2 Kuchipudi Venkat Rao, S/o. Kesava Rao, Raghudevapuram (Village), Seethanagaram (Mandal), East Godavari District, 3 Pendurthi Annapoorna W/o. Venkateswara Rao. Raghudevapuram (Village), Seethanagaram (Mandal), East Godavari District, ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, East Godavari 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notification issued U/s.4 (1) of L.A.Act issued in RF.G3/1473/99 dt.23.4.1999 and Sec.6 declaration of even no.dt.24.4.1999 for acquisition of the land in T.S.No.87/1-A, 88/2, 88/1-B of Raghudevapuram Village, Sitanagaram Mandal admeasuringAc.7-74 cents, Ac.2.82 cents and Ac.8/58 cents respectively as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.11970 of 1999 ORDER: The Writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the Act’) issued in RF.G3/1473/99 dated 23-04-1999 and Section 6 declaration of even number dated 24-04-1999 for acquisition of the land in T.S.No.87/1-A, 88/2, 88/1-B of Raghudevapuram village, Sitanagaram Mandal admeasuring Ac.7-74 cents, Ac.2.82 cents and Ac.8.58 cents respectively as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to aside the same. The first petitioner in the writ petition died, therefore, petitioners 4 and 5 were brought on record by an order of this Court made on 08-12-2006 in W.P.M.P.No.26960 of 2006. The case of the petitioners as per the averments made in the writ petition is that their main occupation is agriculture. The second respondent issued notices under Section 9 (1) and 10 and 9 (3) and 10 of the Act dated 10-05-1999 directing them to appear before him on 31-05-1999 and also submit the statement in writing showing the nature of interest in the lands, the amount of compensation for such interest etc., regarding the lands in T.S.No.87-1A admeasuring Ac.7.74 cents belonging to the first petitioner, T.S.No.88/2 admeasuring Ac.2.82 cents belonging to third petitioner and T.S.No.88/1B admeasuring Ac.3.58 cents belonging to the second petitioner. On receipt of the said notices, they made enquiries in the office of the respondents and came to know that the first respondent issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act vide proceedings RF.G3/1473/99 dated 23-04-1999 for acquisition of Ac.14.14 cents belonging to them for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. Section 5-A enquiry has been dispensed with in view of the urgency in the matter and also authorized the second respondent to exercise the powers conferred under Section 4(2) of the Act. The first respondent also issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 24-04-1999. After coming to know the same, they submitted the statement to the second respondent on 31-05-1999 in pursuance of declaration issued under Section 9 of the Act stating that the notification was not published in the village and no notice was served on them. The then Sub-Collector made a local inspection and found that the lands are low lying and unfit for house sites and the previous acquisition proceedings were dropped. It is also stated that W.P.No.13086 of 1995 filed by the second petitioner and his father questioning the land acquisition proceedings relating to the land in question and also another extent of Ac.4.26 cents in T.S.87/1B of the village is pending. Therefore, the petitioners requested the respondents to drop the proceedings relating to the lands in question. It is also stated that in 1982, the respondents wanted to acquire an extent of Ac.20.68 cents belonged to the petitioners. The then Sub- Collector made local inspection and found that the said lands are not suitable for house sites and further proceedings were dropped. Again, Section 4 (1) notification was issued on 20-01-1995 for acquiring the total extent of Ac.18.15 cents. The same was challenged in W.P.No.13086 of 1995 by the second petitioner and his father on various grounds and this Court in W.P.M.P.No.15960 of 1995 in W.P.No.13086 of 1995 passed an order on 28-06-1995 directing the respondents not to dispossess them from the lands in question and all other proceedings shall go on. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent issued notices in Form No.6 and 7 under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act vide notice dated 13-05-1997 directing his father and himself to appear before the second respondent on 02-06-1997 and file statements in writing showing the nature of interest etc., in the land, the amount of compensation and objections if any. They submitted their representation on 02-06-1997 stating alternative lands are available and the land in question is not fit for house sites and requested him to drop the proceedings. Thereafter, they did not receive any communication from the respondents and no award was passed within two years from the declaration as per the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. It is their case that the present notification is issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry and reducing the extent from Ac.18.15 cents to Ac.14.14 cents and Section 6 declaration was made on 24-04-1999. It is their contention that the action of the first respondent in dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry is illegal and arbitrary, there is no urgency in the matter and the proceedings pending since long time and that the respondents themselves dropped proceedings on two occasions also. On behalf of the respondent the Revenue Divisional Officer filed counter-affidavit stating that the weaker sections of Raghudevapuram village of Seethanagaram Mandal have applied for grant of house sites. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Seethanagaram, has submitted acquisition proposals for an extent of Ac.14.14 cents in Sy.No.87/1A of the said village for provision of house sites to poor under Social Welfare Scheme. It is submitted that draft notification was approved in E.G. Collector’s Ref.G3/1473/99, dated 23-04-1999 and notices under Section 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 of the Act were also published in the locality on 15-05-1999 and the award enquiry was also conducted on 31-05-1999. The substance of the gazette was also got published in daily newspapers i.e., Deccan Chronicle and Andhra Jyothi, dated 14-05-1999 in case of draft notification. The enquiry under Section 5- A was dispensed with, in view of the urgency provision having been invoked in this regard. Draft declaration was got published in daily newspapers Andhra Prabha Telugu daily and News Time, English daily on 14-05-1999 and 15-05-1999 respectively and Gazette publication was on 26-04-1999 and was lastly published in the locality on 15-05-1999. The land owners are big landlords and their livelihood will not be affected by acquisition of the lands in question. At that time, the present writ petition is filed and obtained an interim stay on 13-07-1999 in W.P.M.P.No.14627 of 1999 in W.P.No.11970 of 1999. The main contention of the writ petitioner in the writ petition is that the lands in question are not suitable for the provision of house sites. On earlier occasions when the lands were sought to be acquired, on filing the writ petitions by the second petitioner and his father, the further proceedings were dropped. The main contention in the writ petition is that the action of the respondents in dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry was illegal and there is no urgency in the matter. No legal violation is pointed out in the affidavit. The counter filed by the respondent Revenue Divisional Officer reveals that the authorities have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 4 (1) and 6 of the Act. But there is no mention about taking of the possession of the land, pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent Government submits that in view of the interim direction granted by this Court, no further proceedings could take place in the matter and the petitioners did not point out any legal infirmity in following the procedure contemplated under Section 4 (1) and 6 of the Act, therefore, she submits that no reason to set aside the 4 (1) notification. However, the authority may be directed to go ahead with Section 5-A enquiry, in view of the pendency of the matter before this Court. Having regard to the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit, as the petitioners did not point out legal infirmity in issuing the notification and the procedure contemplated under Section 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Act, and as no possession is also taken, and further taking into consideration the submissions of Government Pleader, I pass the order as under: The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to conduct 5-A enquiry land take further action in accordance with law. No costs. __________________ 26th November, 2008 SKM