HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 14086 OF 2008

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Gazette Notification No. G1/2376/2004, dated 04-02-2005 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire Acs.50.06 guntas of land in Survey No. 21, 22 and 23 of Raviryala Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District including the Award bearing No. C/165/2005, dated

25.10.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law.

2. It is the case of petitioners that subject land was acquired for expansion of Hardware Park proposed by the then A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, i.e. the 5th respondent, presently Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and that petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are protected tenants and supported by 38-E certificates issued under the provisions of the A.P (TA) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and petitioners 5 to 17 are purchasers of land from them under registered sale deeds and their names were mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to them under the provisions of the A.P Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. It is also their case, before ordering mutation and issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds, the authorities concerned have made discrete enquiry and then only issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds and they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is also their case that they are all small farmers and except this small extent, they do not have any other land for their livelihood and except cultivation, they do not know the other source of living being illiterates.

It is also the specific case of petitioners that while giving the impugned Notification, the name of Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple was shown as pattadar and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5 (A) invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. The so-called acquisition through the Notification and dispensing with enquiry under Section 5 (A) is contrary to the very scheme of the Act. It is further alleged that 4(1) notification is required to be published in two popular newspapers having wide circulation, but, it was published only in one newspaper Varthaman which is not a newspaper known to public and it was not published in any other newspaper as required under law. It is contended that for the purpose of establishing Hardware park, hundreds of acres of land was acquired by the State falling in different villages and that land owners, who are similarly situated, filed Writ Petition No. 19579 of 2002 questioning the Notification and declaration under Section 6. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 04.11.2004 following the direction given in Writ Petition No. 21712 of 2002, dated 25.04.2003 whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the authorities concerned to issue notice under section 5 (A) to conduct an enquiry and against the said order, when Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2005 and batch was filed, the same was dismissed on 17.10.2005 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge; therefore, without conducting an enquiry under Section 5 (A), proceeding further and passing an Award is illegal and arbitrary. It is also stated that they filed Writ Petition No. 17763 of 2005 questioning the action of authorities invoking urgency clause by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act and the said Writ petition was directly listed before the Hon’ble Division Bench along with other connected Writ Petitions and all of them were dismissed on 26.10.2005 with the following order:

“ In view of the Judgment of this court in WA. No. 294/2005 and batch, dated 17.10.2005 these writ petitions shall also stand dismissed.”

It is the specific case of petitioners that they are in possession of subject land and that they were not dispossessed by following the provisions of Land Acquisition Act in the name of acquiring land and compensation was also not pai