THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.15471 of 2010 Dated 08th December, 2011 Between: Smt.M.Pullamma …Petitioner And The District Collector & Magistrate, Kurnool, and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R.Ramanjaneyulu Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in acquiring Acs.7.89 cents of land in Survey No.15/1A of E.Tandrapadu Village, Kurnool Mandal & District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the above-mentioned land, which is notified for acquisition for providing house sites to the flood victims. Even though no specific ground is raised in the writ petition, one of the main contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing is that the respondents have committed an illegality in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned counsel argued that having regard to the nature and purpose of acquisition, invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act is improper and illegal and that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has caused immense hardship to the petitioner’s interests. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, I am of the opinion that since the purpose of acquisition is providing house sites to flood victims, it cannot be said that the situation cannot brook delay caused in holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. As held in various judicial pronouncements, Section 5-A of the Act confers valuable opportunity to the land owner to raise objections to the proposed acquisition and such an opportunity cannot be taken away lightly (see Union of India and others v. Mukesh Hans[1] a n d Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRs and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[2]). The power to dispense with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is therefore to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of emergency where the situation does not allow sparing time for holding enquiry. As noted above, the purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired is not so urgent as to warrant dispensing with enquiry and even the very purpose of dispensing with the enquiry is not served due to the interim order granted by this Court on 21.07.2010. It is, therefore, appropriate that the respondents hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. On the above analysis, the writ petition is allowed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is quashed. The respondents are directed to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, pass an order on the objections, if any, that may be filed by the petitioner and communicate the decision before taking further steps towards the acquisition of the petitioner’s land. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.19489 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.4483 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th December, 2011 VGB [1] (2004) 8 SCC 14 [2] (2011) 5 SCC 553