ORDER : 1. This interlocutory application is filed under Section 151 of C.P.C with a request to suspend the operation of G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020, while directing the respondents not to take possession of the subject lands mentioned in the G.O, during pendency of the W.P.(PIL) No.64 of 2020. 2. The three petitioners filed W.P.(PIL) No.64 of 2018 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking pro bono publico to declare the action of the respondents/authorities in deciding to take away the assigned and unassigned agricultural lands in Visakhapatnam District in the name of providing house sites to the poor people in the name of voluntary pooling of land as illegal, unconstitutional and consequently to set-aside G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020. 3. It is relevant to advert to the main grounds urged in the writ petition, irrespective of the other pleas which are required to be decided at final hearing. Hence, it is suffice to note the principal contentions raised in the writ petition to decide the interlocutory application. 4. The petitioners are the residents of Anakapalli and Bheemunipatnam villages in Visakhapatnam District. As the Government intended to pool land to an extent of Ac.6116-50 cents in various mandals of Visakhapatnam District for distributing the same as house sites/housing units under the flagship programme ‘Navaratnalu – Pedalandariki Illu Scheme’, the same is now challenged before this Court on the ground that, without following the procedure under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, the respondents are taking up a short cut method of land pooling, though many villagers are not willing to surrender their lands voluntarily. It is contended that officials of the respondents and the police forces entered into the villages whereas the poor people are not able to approach this Court, the poor are not able to withstand the onslaught of the mighty state. Hence, on account of exerting pressure on the villagers, the State and its instrumentalities are obtaining consent letters and that the concerned authorities issued notice in Form I to the villagers in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020, calling upon the villagers to file their objections on the proposed land pooling or their consent. Hence, on account of exerting pressure on the villagers, the State and its instrumentalities are obtaining consent letters and that the concerned authorities issued notice in Form I to the villagers in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020, calling upon the villagers to file their objections on the proposed land pooling or their consent. It is also contended that, in fact, thirty days time is to be granted for receiving objections, instead of following the guidelines laid down under the Act and Rules framed thereunder, the State instrumentalities adopted a short cut method of pooling even without following the norms fixed under various G.Os and that the State instrumentalities violated the conditions laid down in the G.Os and requested to grant interim stay of the proceedings taken up in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020. 5. During hearing, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the procedure being followed by the respondents is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act 2016’) and the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Development Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation and Implementation) Rules, 2016 issued under G.O.Ms.No.290 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (H1) Department dated 14.11.2016 and compelling the public to surrender their lands, obtaining signatures on the proforma as if it is a voluntary surrender under the land pooling scheme is a matter of serious concern and such acts of the State cannot be encouraged. Such forcible obtaining consent by using forces can never be a voluntary surrender or free consent. Apart from that, the respondents issued notice in Form-1 to the petitioners and other villagers affording 15 days time to file their objections/suggestions which is contrary to Section 29(4) of the Act. On this ground alone, the proposed action of the respondents can be declared as arbitrary. Therefore, there is a prima facie violation of the procedure for pooling the land, as such, the balance of convenience is in favour of these petitioners, since the State was not going to lose anything in case any stay is granted and no substantial injury would be caused to the respondents. 6. Therefore, there is a prima facie violation of the procedure for pooling the land, as such, the balance of convenience is in favour of these petitioners, since the State was not going to lose anything in case any stay is granted and no substantial injury would be caused to the respondents. 6. The respondents did not file any counter in I.A.No.1 of 2020, but advanced arguments supporting G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020, the procedure being followed and acts of the State officials, while contending that the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, permits the State to undertake procurement of the land by way of land pooling and that, the G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020 is issued by invoking the power conferred on the State under the Act and the procedure being followed by the State is in accordance with law and prayed to dismiss I.A.No.1 of 2020. 7. One of the major contentions urged before this Court by Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents are pooling the land by forcibly obtaining signatures on the consent letters with the threat of police and such, consent cannot be said to be a voluntary surrender or free consent of the land owners as per the scheme. Apart from that, a notice in Form-I was issued calling for objections to all the residents of two villages including the petitioners, granting fifteen days time to file their objections, which is contrary to Section 29(4) of the Act and thereby, the procedure followed by the respondents is illegal. It is also contended that some of the villagers have submitted their objections on 19.02.2020, 18.02.2020 & 25.02.2020 and they are placed on record to substantiate the contentions of these petitioners that the consent is not free consent and no sufficient time, as mandated under Section 29(4) of the Act was granted. On this ground alone, the process of pooling of land by the respondents cannot be allowed to be proceeded. 8. On this ground alone, the process of pooling of land by the respondents cannot be allowed to be proceeded. 8. The land pooling scheme is adopted only in pursuance of the power conferred on the State by Section 29(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016, which stipulates that the competent authority for land pooling scheme shall be the Metropolitan Commissioner/Vice-Chairperson or an officer appointed by the Government and also includes such other officers along with staff, appointed by Government for the purpose. When the scheme is formulated by the Government for land pooling in exercise of power conferred by the Act, the State has to strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed under Section 29 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act is relevant to decide the issue involved, in view of the specific plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and it is extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the case: “27(4) The Competent Authority for land pooling scheme shall issue a notification declaring its intention (hereafter referred to as the ‘declaration of intention’) to make the land pooling scheme in respect of such an area in the prescribed manner within prescribed time period, calling for objections or suggestions as well as consent from the Land Owners or interested parties whose lands are included in the land pooling scheme so as to reach within thirty days from the date of publication of such notification.” 9. A bare look at extracted provision, shows that thirty days time is the maximum time prescribed for submitting objections or suggestions as well as consent from the Land Owners or interested parties whose lands are included in the land pooling scheme. According to Section 29(5) of the Act, on receipt of such objections and suggestions, the competent authority shall consider and dispose of all such objections and suggestions within the prescribed time limit and approve the Land Pooling Scheme area with or without modifications within the prescribed time period. 10. When a specific procedure is prescribed for inviting objections and suggestions, the Competent Authority has to adhere to the procedure strictly without any deviation. In exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act, the Competent Authority shall prepare and notify draft land pooling scheme of the area, prescribing the mode of notification and details of the notifications. 10. When a specific procedure is prescribed for inviting objections and suggestions, the Competent Authority has to adhere to the procedure strictly without any deviation. In exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act, the Competent Authority shall prepare and notify draft land pooling scheme of the area, prescribing the mode of notification and details of the notifications. After receipt of objections from the public and land owners, the Competent Authority shall approve and publish the Final Land pooling Scheme Notification as per Section 31(2) of the Act. 11. Publication in Form I as required under Section 29 (4) of the Act was made in Telugu Language vide Rc.No.1075654/2020/Estae/I-1(D.T) dated 27.01.2020 for ten Mandals in Visakhapatnam District by the Competent Officer to pool the lands and called for objections and suggestions from the concerned within fifteen days by fixing time and date in Column Nos. 3 & 4, also fixing the venue for negotiations. But, no objections have been called for from the affected land owners. However, Form No.I dated 27.01.2020 was issued calling upon the objections within fifteen days from the date of its publication. 12. But, the requirement under Section 29(4) of the Act is to provide thirty days time for calling objections and suggestions as well as consent from the Land owners or interested parties whose lands are included in the land pooling scheme, from the date of publication of such notification. Therefore, issuing proceedings for land pooling scheme, affording fifteen days time by issuing Notice in Form-I for submitting objections and suggestions as well as consent from the Land owners or interested parties within fifteen days, fixing the date on 11.02.2020 for conducting enquiry, considering the objections/suggestions in Form-II within fifteen days is prima facie contrary to Section 29(4) of the Act. As the respondents violated Section 29(4) of the Act, prima facie, disabling the land owners and persons interested to submit their objections within thirty days is a prima facie violation and thereby, the entire process of land pooling is vitiated by a serious irregularity prima facie. Since the respondents violated the procedure prescribed under Section 29 (4) of the Act in taking possession in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020 alone can be stayed, but the entire G.O. cannot be suspended in the interlocutory application. Since the respondents violated the procedure prescribed under Section 29 (4) of the Act in taking possession in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020 alone can be stayed, but the entire G.O. cannot be suspended in the interlocutory application. Hence, we find that it is a fit case to direct the respondents not to take possession of the subject lands pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020 during pendency of this writ petition. 13. In the result, subject to filing reply I.A.No.01 of 2020 is allowed until further orders, directing the respondents not to take possession of the subject lands pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.72 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 25.01.2020 during pendency of this writ petition.