WP/27757/2007 of R.A.Dayanand, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, through its on 27 December 2007

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set asidenotification dated 06.12.2007 and declaration dated 09.12.2007 issuedunder Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,‘the Act’) as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary toorders dated 12.01.2005 and 27.09.2006 of respondent No.2.

Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for thepetitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for LandAcquisition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in pursuanceof directions given by this Court on 17.07.2003 in Writ Appeal No.1175 of 2003, respondent No.5 served form-A notice on the petitioner, who, along with other people of the locality, in turn, represented torespondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reconsider the road widening programme. The learned counsel submitted that after considering the saidobjections, the Hon’ble Minister for Municipal Administration andUrban Development inspected road No.9 of Himayatnagar and issuedwritten instructions on 12.01.2006, whereunder the width of the road isdirected to be restricted from 50’ to 40’. He also submitted that againon 27.09.2006, respondent No.2 passed order reiterating the saidearlier order. The learned counsel submitted that in spite of the saidwritten orders, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notification anddeclaration under Section 6. He submitted that the respondents havecommitted grave illegality in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, thereby, denying the petitioner an opportunity of puttingforth his objections.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel forthe petitioner as also the learned Assistant Government Pleader. It isheld by a plethora of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court thatSection 5-A of the Act provides a valuable opportunity for the citizensto object to the proposed acquisition and that unless the purpose ofacquisition is of so urgent in nature that it does not brook the delay ofholding enquiry, the State and its officers are bound to hold enquiryunder Section 5-A.

From a perusal of notification issued under Section 4(1), it isevident that the land is sought to be acquired for widening of road No.9(Himayatnagar to Ashoknagar). In my considered opinion, the purposeis not so urgent in nature which should warrant the respondents todispense with the holding of enquiry under Section 5-A, more so whenvaluable properties of the citizens will be required for carrying out theproposed purpose.

In this view of the matter, declaration dated 06.12.2007 issuedunder Section 6 of the Act is quashed. The respondents are directed tohold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by affording the petitionerand other similarly situated persons an opportunity of personal hearingbefore proceeding with the proposed acquisition.

The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36305of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed.

27.12.2007

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

ksld