W.P.(C) No. 30473 of 2011 (H)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2012/9TH SRAVANA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 30473 of 2011 (H) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **1. THOMAS S/O.JOSEPH @ TOMY, AGED 44, PADINJARAYIL HOUSE, THUDANGANADU P.O.** **2. SHINY W/O.THOMAS, AGED 40, PADINJARAYIL HOUSE, THUDANGANADU.P.O.** **3. AUGUSTHY S/O.MATHAI, AGED 80, PADINJARAYIL HOUSE, THUDANGANADU P.O.** **4. CLEMANT S/O.THOMAS, AGED 52, PAMPACKEL HOUSE, THUNDANGANADU P.O.** **5. MARYKUTTY, W/O.THOMAS, AGED 45, POOVALIL HOUSE, THUNDANGANDU P.O.** **6. MATHEW S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 60, VALIYAPAIKKATT HOUSE, ULLANADU P.O. 7. SEBASTIAN, S/O.DEVASSIA, AGED 58, PANACHINANICKAL HOUSE, THUNDANGANADU P.O.** **8. DAISY D/O.ANTONEY, AGED 47, THALIYIL HOUSE, ANAPPARA ANGAMALY.** **9. JOSEPH S/O.KURIAN, AGED 55, THAZHATHEL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O.** **10. MINI W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 45, THAZHATHEL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O.** **11. JOMON S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 27, THAZHATHEL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O. 12. MATHAI, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 60, NELLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THUNDANGANADU P.O. 13. THOMAS S/O.POULOSE, AGED 73, VELLIMOOZHAYIL HOUSE, THUNDANGANADU P.O.** **VK** ## **WP(C).No. 30473 of 2011 (H)** ## **---------------------------** **14. JOHN, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 55, THEEKKUZHUVELIL HOUSE, THUNDANGANADU P.O.** **15. ALICE W/O.JOHN, AGED 50, THEEKKUZHUVELIL HOUSE, THUNDANGANADU P.O.** **16. GEORGE SEBASTIAN, S/O.OUSEPH DEVASSIA, AGED 58, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE, KADANADU P.O.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** ## **-----------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** **2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** **3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685 601.** **4. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA), LAND ACQUISITION, THODUPUZHA-685 584.** **5. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., TC 31/2312, KINFRA HOUSE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **6. SPICES BOARD, `SUGANDHA BHAVAN' NATIONAL HIGHWAY 47, PALARIVATTOM EDAPPALLY ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** **R1-4 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUSHEELA BHATT R5 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH,SC R6 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KUTHUPPACHAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **VK** ## **WP(C).No. 30473 of 2011 (H) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.615/2008/ID DTD.21/6/2008. EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE G.O.(RT)NO.615/2008/ID DATED 21/6/2008.** **EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.B.839/2008 DATED 19/9/2009.** **EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LR C7-20193/09 DATED 15/9/2009.** **EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION NO.LR C7/4592/10 DATED 25/2/2010.** **EXHIBIT P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5/6/2010.** **EXHIBIT P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)625/2010/ID DATED 13/5/2010.** **EXHIBIT P8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)1270/2009/ID DTD.29.9.09.** **EXHIBIT P9: THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC VALUATION STATEMENT NO.B-839/08 DATED 14/9/2011.** **EXHIBIT P10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C7-37879/2010 DATED 14/10/2011.** **EXHIBIT P11: THE TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.51/2011/IND DATED 22/2/2011.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **----------------------** **EXT.R5(A). COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.** **EXT.R5(B). COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.207/2007/ID DT.21.02.2007.** **EXT.R5(C). COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.436/08/ID DT.25.04.2008.** **EXT.R5(D). COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.615/2008/ID DT.21.06.08.** **EXT.R5(E). COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LR(C) 7-20193/09 DTD. 15.09.2009 OF THE COMMSSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAURAM.** **VK** **WP(C).No. 30473 of 2011 (H)** **---------------------------** **EXT.R5(F). COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY DATED 23.09.2009.** **EXT.R5(G). COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1270/2009/ID DT.29.09.2009.** **EXT.R5(H). COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.1270/2009/ID DTD.29.09.2009.** **EXT.R5(I). COPY OF THE LETTER NO.40513/B2/09/REV. DEPT./ DTD 04.05.2010.** **EXT.R5(J). COPY OF THE DECLARATION NO.LR C7-4592/10 DT.25.02.2010 PUBLISHED BY LAND REVENUE COMMISSSIONER** **EXT.R5(K). COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO KINFRA BY “THUDANGANADU SPICES PARK LAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION”, THODUPUZHA ON 04.04.2009.** **EXT.R5(I). COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO KINFRA BY “THUDANGANADU SPICES PARK LAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION”, THODUPUZHA ON 2.11.09.** **EXT.R5(M). COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO KINFRA BY “THUDANGANADU SPICES PARK LAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION”, THODUPUZHA ON 6.04.2010.** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30473 OF 2011 ===================** ## **Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent. 2. In this writ petition, the main challenge is against the land acquisition proceedings initiated dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. From the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent, it appears that, following the discussions between the Government of Kerala and the Government of India, Ext.R5(a) memorandum of understanding was signed between respondents 5 and 6 for setting up an Integrated Spices Product Industrial Park in Idukki District. The memorandum contemplated that the initial contribution of the State Government through the 5[th] respondent will be in the form of land to be acquired by the 5[th] respondent. Accordingly, the Government by Ext.R5(b) order dated 21/2/2007 constituted an Expert Committee. The Committee conducted enquiries and recommended to the Government to acquire 100 **WPC.No.30473/11** **:2 :** Acres of land in Sy.No.1/1 in Kalkoonthal Village of Udumbanchola Taluk for setting up a Primary Processing Zone of the Spices Park and 100 Acres of land of Malankara Estate in Muttom Village of Thodupuzha Taluk for the Value Additional Zone of the Spices Park. Accordingly, Government issued order dated 01/02/2008 for acquisition of 100 Acres of land in Kalkoonthal Village. 4. It appears that the land identified in Malankara estate for the Value Addition Zone was found to be very expensive and therefore further enquiries were made by the 5[th] respondent, which identified another area at Thudanganad in Muttom Village where District Industries Centre had 14.67 Acres of land. Counter affidavit also shows that a team led by Managing Director of the 5[th] respondent and the local Revenue Officials inspected the aforesaid land and identified about 90.82 Acres of land lying adjoining to the 3 sides of the DIC land for setting up of the Value Addition Zone of the Spices park. 5. Subsequently, by Ext.R5(c) order dated 25.4.2008, Government transferred the DIC land from the Industries Department to the 5[th] respondent and also issued Ext.R5(d) order dated 21/6/2008 sanctioning acquisition of 90.82 Acres of land in **WPC.No.30473/11** **:3 :** Muttom village under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act invoking Section 17(4) thereof. Following this, on 25/6/2008, 5[th] respondent made a requisition to the District Collector for the acquisition of this land. It appears that based on a proposal made by the District Collector, by Ext.P4 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner on 15/9/09, enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was allowed to be dispensed with. 6. On the basis of the above, Ext.P3 notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 19/9/09 was published in the gazette dated 23/9/09. This notification also made it clear that the enquiry under Section 5A will stand dispensed with. Subsequently, Government issued Ext.P8 order dated 29/9/09 including the acquisition in question under the Fast Track Procedure. Thereafter Section 6 declaration was made by Ext.P5 on 25/2/2010 and notice under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued by Ext.P6 dated 5/6/2010. Counter affidavit further shows that the land value in this acquisition was determined by District Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) constituted by the Government after negotiation with the land owners. Three negotiation meetings were held on 30/5/11, 28/6/11 and 15/7/11 where many of the **WPC.No.30473/11** **:4 :** land owners have participated. It is also stated that on conclusion of these meetings, the District Collector has forwarded the rates fixed by the DLPC for each category of land to the State Level Empowered Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary for approval. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on 14/11/11 contending mainly that the acquisition dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A is illegal. In support of this prayer, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in _**Sharlet v. State of Kerala**_ (2012(3) KLT 73). 7. On behalf of the respondents, the main contention raised was that the Government was satisfied of the urgency of the acquisition and that it was therefore that Section 17(4) was permitted to be invoked. It was also argued that the Government have already transferred part of the land required to the 5[th] respondent and therefore it was necessary that the project should be established within the shortest possible time. Further, relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in _**Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria**_ {(1996) 4 SCC 579} and _**Urban Improvement Trust v. Bheru Lal**_ {(2002) 7 SCC 712}, respondents argued that the writ petition filed is highly belated, **WPC.No.30473/11** **:5 :** and therefore, should not be entertained at this stage. On these contentions, respondents sought dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In the judgment in _**Sharlet v. State of Kerala**_ (2012 (3) KLT 73), relying on the Apex Court judgments, this Court has considered the circumstances in which enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act can be validly dispensed with. Examining that issue, it has been held thus: _13. The importance and necessity to conduct the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act has been dealt with by the Apex Court in various judgments and the right conferred on the land owners under Section 5A has already been equated with fundamental rights. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment in_ _**Maharashtra State Co-operative bank Ltd., V. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors.(2009(10)SCC 115),** where the Apex Court laid down the following principles;_ _“.....it has been emphasized that a right under Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Such observations had been made in reference to an observation made in the earlier decision in Gurdial Singh case and keeping in mind the fact that right to property was no longer a fundamental right, an observation was made that even if the right to property was no longer a fundamental right, the observation relating to Article 14 would continue to apply in full force with regard to Section 5-A of the LA Act._ _That in the said decisions, such right was_ **WPC.No.30473/11** **:6 :** _elevated to the status of a fundamental right is in itself sufficient to indicate that great care had to be taken by the authorities before resorting to Section 17(4) of the LA Act, and that they had to satisfy themselves that there was an urgency of such nature as indicated in Section 17(2) of the Act, which could brook no delay whatsoever.”_ _14. Subsequently, in the judgment in_ _**Ramal Trading Private Limited V. State of West Bengal and Ors.( 2012(2) SCC 25** ), the Apex Court held that it must be borne in mind that the proceedings under the LA Act are based on the principle of eminent domain and that Section 5-A is the only protection available to the person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It was further held that it is the minimal safeguard afforded to him to protect himself from arbitrary acquisition by pointing out to the authority concerned, that public purpose is absent in the proposed acquisition or that the acquisition is mala fide. The Apex Court also held that the Act being an ex-propriatory legislation, its provisions will have to be strictly construed._ _15. Having thus seen the importance and the requirement of the enquiry under Section 5A , I shall now proceed to examine the circumstances in which the urgency clause provided under Section 17(4) can be invoked by the authorities. This question came up for consideration of the Apex Court in its judgment in_ _**Radhy shyam (dead) through Lr. & Ors. V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors..(2011(5) SCC 553)** , where in paragraph 77 it was held as follows;_ _From the analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and interpretation thereof by this Court in different cases, the following principles can be culled out:_ _(i). Eminent domain is a right inherent in every sovereign to take and appropriate property belonging to citizens for public use. To put it_ **WPC.No.30473/11** **:7 :** _differently the sovereign is entitled to reassert its dominion over any portion of the soil of the State including private property without its owner's consent provided that such assertion is on account of public exigency and for public good - Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spg. And Wvg.Co. Ltd, Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat_ _(ii).The legislations which provide for compulsory acquisition of private property by the State fall in the category of expropriatory legislation and such legislation must be construed strictly - DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust v. State of Haryana; State of Maharashtra v. B.E.Billimoria and Dev Sharan v. State of U.P. (iii). Though, in exercise of the power of eminent domain, the Government can acquire the private property for public purpose, it must be remembered that compulsory taking of one's property is a serious matter. If the property belongs to economically disadvantaged segment of the society or people suffering from other handicaps, then the court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to scrutinize the action/decision of the State with greater vigilance care and circumspection keeping in view the fact that the landowner is likely to become landless and deprived of the only source of his livelihood and / or shelter._ _(iv). The property of a citizen cannot be acquired by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities without complying with the mandate of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be does not entitle the State to invoke the urgency provisions because the same have the effect of depriving the owner of his right toi property without being heard. Only in a case of real urgency, the State can invoke the urgency provisions and dispense with the requirement of hearing the landowner or other interested persons. (v). Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4)_ **WPC.No.30473/11** **:8 :** _confers extraordinary power upon the State to acquire private property without complying with the mandate of Section 5-A. These provisions can be invoked only when the purpose of acquisition cannot brook the delay of even a few weeks or months. Therefore, before excluding the application of Section 5-A, the authority concerned must be fully satisfied that time of few weeks or months likely to be taken in conducting inquiry under Section 5-A will, in all probability frustrate the public purpose for which land is proposed to be acquired._ _(vi). The satisfaction of the Government on the issue of urgency is subjective but is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section 17(1) and the same can be challenged on the ground that the purpose for which the private property is sought to be acquired is not a public purpose at all or that the exercise of power is vitiated due to mala fides or that the authorities concerned did not apply their mind to the relevant factors and the records._ _(vii). The exercise of power by the Government under Section 17(1) does not necessarily result in exclusion of Section 5-A of the Act in terms of which any person interested in land can file objection and is entitled to be heard in support of his objection. The use of word “may” in sub section (4) of Section 17 makes it clear that it merely enables the Government to direct that the provisions of Section 5-A would not apply to the cases covered under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 17. In other words, invoking of Section 17(4) is not a necessary concomitant of the exercise of power under Section 17(1)._ _(viii). The acquisition of land for residential commercial, industrial or institutional purposes can be treated as an acquisition for public purposes within the meaning of Section 4 but that by itself does not justify the exercise of power by the Government under Sections 17(1) and/or 17 (4). The court can take judicial notice of the fact that planning, execution and implementation of the schemes relating to development of_ **WPC.No.30473/11** **:9 :** _residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas usually take few years. Therefore, the private property cannot be acquired for such purpose by invoking the urgency provision contained in Section 17(1). In any case, exclusion of the rule of audi alteram partem embodied in Section 5-A(1) and (2) is not at all warranted in such matters._ _(ix). If land is acquired for the benefit of private persons, the court should view the invoking of Sections 17(1) and/or 17(4) with suspicion and carefully scrutinize the relevant record before adjudicating upon the legality of such acquisition._ _16. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Apex Court in its later judgment in_ _**Darshan Lal Nagpal (dead) by LRS. V. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.(2012(2)SCC 327)** ._ _**17.** A reading of these two judgments show that in cases where the powers under Section 17 (4) is invoked, records produced should demonstrate a clear application of mind by the competent authority on the question of necessity and desirability of invoking the urgency provision. Further , these provisions can be invoked only if competent authority is satisfied that even a small delay of even few weeks or months may frustrate the public purpose. Therefore before excluding the enquiry under Section 5A, the authorities concerned should be fully satisfied that delay of few weeks or months which is likely to be taken for enquiry under Section 5A will have the possibility of frustrating the public purpose, for which the land is proposed to be acquired. Further, though the satisfaction of the appropriate Government in this behalf is subjective, but such satisfaction is a condition precedent to exercise of power under Section 17(4) and that when challenged, it is up to the appropriate Government to produce materials before the Court and satisfy the Court that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by it was on the basis of_ **WPC.No.30473/11** **:10 :** _the materials available before it._ 9. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner according sanction to invoke Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. This order merely says that the District Collector requested for sanction under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act to dispense with enquiry under Section 5A for the acquisition of the land in question. Thereafter, details of the land are detailed and the order concludes by stating thus: “ _The Commissioner of Land Revenue having examined the proposal and then satisfied that the land is urgently required here by directs in exercise of the power under Sub Section (4) of Section 17 of the L.A.Act 1894 that the provision for hearing an objection under section 5A shall not apply to the acquisition of the above said land on the above purpose in accordance with the Government Order third cited.”_ 10. A reading of this order therefore shows that apart from blindly accepting the proposal made by the District Collector, the Land Revenue Commissioner has not applied his mind to the proposal in question or independently examined whether there was any circumstance justifying the invocation of Section 17(4). Therefore, Ext.P4 itself makes it clear that the invocation of Section 17(4) was without any application of mind and the order **WPC.No.30473/11** **:11 :** does not satisfy the legal requirements indicated in the aforesaid judgment. 11. That apart, it is also noticed that sanction for acquisition of the land in question was accorded by Ext.P1 order dated 21/6/2008. It was only by Ext.P4 dated 15/9/09 that the Land Revenue Commissioner allowed invocation of Section 17(4). Following this, Ext.P3 notification dated 19/9/09 was issued under Section 4(1) and Ext.P5 declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25/2/2010. The time taken for completing the aforesaid process itself will show that there was no real urgency as noticed in the judgment referred to above, existing in this case to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A. 12. I shall now proceed to examine whether the delay in filing the writ petition should result in dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Admittedly, notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 19/9/09 and this writ petition was filed before this Court only on 14/11/11. In the meantime, declaration under Section 6 was issued by Ext.P5 on 25/2/2010 and notice under Section 9 was issued by Ext.P6 on 5/6/2010. Subsequently also, many **WPC.No.30473/11** **:12 :** developments have happened and in that sense, respondents are justified that there did occur delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. Question to be considered is whether this delay should be fatal in so far as this case is concerned. 14. As already seen, the project is implemented in two stages. 100 Acres of land is identified to be acquired at Thudanganad in Muttom Village and another 100 Acres of land is identified to be acquired in Kalkoonthal Village of Udumbanchola Taluk. The Primary Processing Zone of the Spices Park is to be set up in the land to be acquired in Kalkoonthal Village and spices which are processed in the Primary Processing Zone are to be subjected to Value Addition in the Value Addition Zone to be set up in Muttom Village. Therefore, what is proposed to be set up in Muttom Village is the facility for the second stage of process with the primary process of spices which are processed at the facility to be set up in the Kalkoonthal Village. 15. In so far as the acquisition of 100 Acres for the Primary Processing Zone at Kalkoonthal Village is concerned, in para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5[th] respondent, it is stated thus: “ _10. The Land Acquisition Proceedings for_ **WPC.No.30473/11** **:13 :** _acquisition of 100 Acres of land at Nedumkandam in Udumbanchola Taluk could not be pushed through due to certain unforeseen circumstances. The lands identified for acquisition at Nedumkandam were later found to be cardamom hill reserve area as per the proclamation of 1822 of the erstwhile Maharaja of Travancore. These lands are cardamom hill reserve lands as per the Revenue records. The present occupants of these lands are mostly non patta holders and patta holders, who obtained pattayams under different statutes and they are now involved in the infamous illegal pattayam issue of Idukki District. It was in these circumstances that the Land Revenue Commissioner has not issued sanction orders for starting land acquisition proceedings at Nedumkandam for the preprocessing zone under the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In effect, this acquisition is now held up because of the infamous illegal pattayam issue prevailing in Idukki Revenue District_ .” 16. This therefore shows that not even Section 4(1) notification has been issued in respect of the property in Kalkoonthal Village for the Primary Processing Zone. If that be so, there is absolutely no justification for this hurried exercise of land acquisition even dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A in respect of the second stage of the project viz., Value Addition Zone to be set up in Muttom Village Therefore, no prejudice whatsoever will be caused if an enquiry under Section 5A is ordered to be conducted even at this stage of the proceedings. **WPC.No.30473/11** **:14 :** 17. In that view, since the amount of prejudice to be caused to the petitioners who are going to be deprived of the land is grave, I am inclined to direct that Section 5A enquiry should be conducted for the reason that the respondents have not succeeded in establishing that there existed any imminent urgency justifying dispensation of 5A enquiry. 18. With that in mind, I set aside Ext.P4 proceedings of the Land Revenue Commissioner according sanction for invoking Section 17(4) and also Ext.P3, the notification issued under Section 4 (1) to the extent Section 17(4) is invoked and enquiry under Section 5A is dispensed with. Respondents are directed to continue the acquisition after conducting enquiry under Section 5A in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE** Rp