IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16698 of 2008 Between: 1 Goli Ramakrishna S/o. Late Papa Rao R/o. Vetlapalem Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Goli Lakshmi W/o. G. Ramakrishna R/o. Vetlapalem Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Goli Subbayamma W/o. Late Babu Rao R/o. Vetlapalem Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Collector, Land Acquisition, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada Division, Kakinada, East Godavari 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned notiﬁcation No. Form -2A notiﬁcation bearing reference No. G2/3972/08 dt. 11-7-2008 issued by the 1st respondent U/s. 4(1) of Land Acquisition published in Vaartha Telugu Daily dt. 16-7-2008 as bad illegal, without any application of mind, capricious and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the respondents 1 & 2 not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective extents of land and to pass necessary orders as are deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ERANKI.PHANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16698 of 2008 O R D E R: The land belonging to the petitioners situated in Vetlapalem village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District is sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) under Indiramma Pathakam. The notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published on 11-07-2009. Having come to know of the same, the petitioners state that they ﬁled their objections to the acquisition before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2 nd respondent failed to consider the same but on the other hand, there is every threat of dispossession of the petitioners from the lands in question. Hence, this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned notiﬁcation dated 11-07- 2008 shows that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act has not been invoked. Therefore, the respondents are bound to conduct the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, duly giving an opportunity to the land owners/occupants of the land to raise their objections to the acquisition. Without conducting such enquiry and without taking further steps as contemplated under the Act, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the lands in question. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever without considering the objections raised by the petitioners and without following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 01-08-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. B/o KLP