IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.8235 of 2008 Between: V. Venkateshwar Rao S/o. Panduranga Rao, R/o. Sanjeevapur Village H/o. Chandrakal, Peddakothapalli Mandal,Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring the land bearing Sy.No. 200, admeasuring Ac 2-20 gts situated at Sanjeevapur Village H/o. Chandrakal, Peddakothapalli Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District through Draft Notification issued by the Respondent No.1 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and published in Mahaboobnagar District Gazette on 4-1-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.8235 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.200 of Sanjeevapur village, H/o Chandrakal of Peddakothapalli Mandal in Mahaboobnagar District. His land was proposed to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society, by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). Urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and thereby, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Land Acquisition. Petitioner questions the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on various grounds. However, on a bare reading of the impugned notification it is clear that the purpose, for which the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired, cannot be said to be urgent in nature in order to invoke the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act. No doubt, Section 17(4) of the Act enables the Land Acquisition authorities to dispense with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, but at the same time it shall not be resorted to in normal circumstances. As the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act provide a valuable opportunity to the landowners to put forth their objections to the proposed acquisition, such an opportunity cannot be denied to them unless there is real urgency. Evidently, the purpose mentioned in the notification impugned does not indicate that there is such an urgency to invoke urgency clause. Therefore, the action of the respondent-authorities in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be sustained. In Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja, the Supreme Court also observed that in the absence of any material to show subjective satisfaction, urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “Section 17 confers extraordinary powers on the authorities under which it can dispense with the normal procedure laid down under Section 5-A of the Act in exceptional case of urgency. Such powers cannot be lightly resorted to except in case of real urgency enabling the Government to take immediate possession of the land proposed to be acquired for public purpose. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be, by itself is not sufficient to take aid of S.17 to use this extraordinary power as use of such power deprives a land owner of his right in relation to immovable property to file objections for the proposed acquisition and it also dispenses with the inquiry under S.5-A of the Act. The authority may have subjective satisfaction of the need for invoking urgency clause under S.17 keeping in mind the nature of the public purpose, real urgency that the situation demands and the time factor i.e, whether taking possession of the property can wait for a minimum period within which the objections could be received from the land owners and the inquiry under S.5-A of the Act could be completed.” In the light of the said judgment and also in view of the fact that the purpose for which the land in question is sought to be acquired does not indicate that there is any urgency, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the action of the respondents in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the respondent-authorities are hereby directed to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. As of now the petitioner is aware of the enquiry to be conducted, by virtue of this order. Hence, he may approach the Land Acquisition Officer concerned and file his objections to the acquisition. On filing such objections, the Land Acquisition Officer concerned shall issue notice to the petitioner, well in advance, specifying the date of enquiry enabling the petitioner to ventilate his grievance. It is needless to observe that the authority concerned, while considering the objections of the petitioner, shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 2nd May 2008 sh To 1 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Nagarkurnool, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 Two C.Cs to 4 Two C.D. copies.