IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 4777 of 2009 Between: Reddy Rama Murthy, S/o. Sivannarayana, R/o. Balaga Village, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal SEcretary, Revenue Department, SEcretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (LAO) Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer(LA) Srikakulam. .....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 writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing 4(1) Notifiction dated 1-12-2008 of the 2nd respndent in acquiring the lands in Sy.No.166/4 and 9-16 of Balaga village showing the wrong names as the owners of the land, instead of the petitioenr name as owner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and seta side the same andconsequently direct the respondents to issue notice to the pettioenr and conduct enquiry and pass an award tillthen not to pay the compensation relating to an extent of land Ac.6.56 cents in Sy.No.166/4 and 9 to 16 of Balaga Villalge, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District in pursuant to the 4(1) Notification dated 1-12- 2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 4777 of 2009 12-03-2009 Oral Order: The petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.06-56 cents in survey Nos. 166/4 and 166/9 to 16 of Balaga Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District. By a notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 01-12- 2008 several lands including the petitioner’s land aforementioned are proposed for acquisition. The notification has been issued by the 2nd respondent, who has also invoked urgency under Section 17 (4) of the Act and dispensed with the salutary process of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The acquisition is stated to be for the purpose of providing house sites to people belonging to the weaker sections of the society. It does not appear that the 2nd respondent conceived of the idea of providing house sites to the people belonging to weaker sections on a midnight. Obviously an assessment would have been made by the State, marshalling resources for the purposes of acquiring lands for the end use of providing house sites to the people belonging to the weaker sections. All this administrative process and financial planning takes considerable time particularly in a hierarchical bureaucracy. In such circumstances, there could not be urgency merely for dispensing with the salutary and statutory process of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act for the purpose of ascertaining objections of the landholders for the acquisition. The invocation of urgency under Section 17 (4) of the Act and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, is in the circumstances a perverse executive decision and subversive of the legislative purposes for which an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is mandated. The invocation of urgency as spelt out in the impugned notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, is therefore irrational and unsustainable and is quashed to the extent of invocation of emergency and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act. In the circumstances above, if no award has been passed as on date (after issuing a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act), the respondents shall not proceed with the acquisition without issuing the petitioner (who claims to be the owner of the land) an opportunity to set forth his objections to the process of acquisition; considering the said objections; taking a decision thereon and communicating the decision to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is present in the Court and undertakes to telegraphically inform the 2nd respondent of this order today itself. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 12-03-2009 Pvks Nb:- Furnish c.c. in two days. B/O pvks/*