This writ petition is filed, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notification issued in Reference No.G5/148/07, dated 12.04.2007, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the declaration issued under Section 6 of the said Act, in proceedings, dated 21.04.2007, issued in Reference No.G5/143/2007, by the 1st respondent-District Collector, as illegal and arbitrary and that the same are issued in violation of the provisions under the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006.

2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.269/3 and Ac.0.23 cents in Sy.No.269/4 of Bhimavaram village of Samalkot Mandal in East Godavari District. The Zonal Manager of A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (APIIC), Kakinada, has submitted a requisition to the District Collector of East Godavari District, vide Letter, dated 5th January 2007, for acquiring the aforesaid land of Ac.0.52 cents covered by Sy.Nos.269/3 and 269/4, situated at Bhimavaram village of Samalkot Mandal, for the purpose of construction of Intake Well and Pump House for supply of Contour to M/s.Rak Ceramics Limited. After making necessary inspections and surveys, the aforesaid land was notified and notification was issued and was published in District Gazette on 12.04.2007, invoking urgency clause by dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, and further declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published in the Gazette on 21.04.2007.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that only when he received notice on 7th August 2007 for payment of 80% compensation, he came to know about the acquisition proceedings. It is stated that on receipt of said notice and having come to know about acquisition of his land, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

4. It is the case of petitioner that the aforesaid land is fertile agricultural land, which is being used for raising paddy and sugarcane crops. As stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that though there is no urgency warranting invocation of provisions under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondents have invoked the same by dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is stated that construction of Intake Well and Pump House by M/s.Rak Ceramics Limited, a Private Limited Company, is not in the nature of that urgency, so as to invoke the provisions under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act by dispensing with inquiry. It is stated that by invoking urgency clause, petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to show that the land is unsuitable for construction and to raise other valid objections. It is also their case that as the lands are notified based on the requisition sent by M/s.Rak Ceramics Limited, the acquisition cannot be said to be for public purpose because there is no benefit to the general public if a private Company sets up a Pump House for its own benefit. It is stated that as the acquisition is for a Private Limited Company, it is obligatory on the part of respondents to follow the procedure under Part-VII (Sections 38 to 50) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner has also raised a ground stating that as the land in question is not converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, respondents cannot be permitted to acquire his agriculture land for using the same for nonagricultural purpose i.e industrial purpose.

5. Separate counter affidavits are filed on behalf of Government as well as the 3rd respondent-APIIC. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Government, which is sworn by the Special Grade Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Kakinada, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the Zonal Manager of APIIC, Kaki