THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25793 of 2007 Date: 07.02.2008 Between: Kollu Appalaswamy and another … Petitioners AND The District Collector, East Godavari District. And others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Ch.Dhananjay Counsel for respondents: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25793 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notification dated 28.7.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. An extent of Ac.8.00 of land belonging to the petitioners was proposed to be acquired under notification dated 28.7.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. In response to notice dated 20.8.2007 issued under Section 5A of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections. After considering the objections of the petitioners, respondent No.1 rejected the same vide his order dated 16.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Sri Ch.Dhanjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the proceedings of the respondents mainly on two grounds, namely, 1) the petitioners were not given an opportunity of personal hearing, and 2) respondent No.1 rejected the objections of the petitioners without any application of mind whatsoever. In the view I am taking, there is no need for me to go into the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. With regard to the second contention, learned counsel had drawn my attention to order dated 16.11.2007 passed by respondent No.1 wherein the petitioners’ objections relating to filing of sketch to show that alternative lands, which were available and in respect of which the owners of those lands conveyed their no objections for giving away the same for the purpose for which the lands of the petitioners were proposed to be acquired, are more suitable, respondent No.2 in his report submitted “no remarks”. Respondent No.1 without going into the said aspect merely accepted the remarks of respondent No.2 and rejected the objections. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Tahsildar, Jaggampeta – respondent No.3 herein in his report dated 27.11.2007 categorically mentioned that three persons by name T.Vijay Phani Babu, V.Srirama Chandra Murthy and E.Appa Rao, gave their consent for acquiring their lands situated in Survey Nos.76/1, 76/1D, 129/1D respectively and that the beneficiaries are preferring the said lands which are more convenient than the lands of the petitioners which are proposed to be acquired. Having carefully considered the material on record and the submission of the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that respondents 1 and 2 acted without application of mind in disposing of the objections of the petitioners. It requires no emphasis that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act provide a valuable opportunity for the owners of the land to raise their objections and it is the bounden duty of the respondents to consider the objections carefully and not by making a mechanical approach. If material on record produced by the petitioners show that there are alternative lands in the above mentioned survey numbers which are more convenient and the owners of the said lands are prepared to give away those lands, in my view there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the respondents to go ahead with the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons, order dated 16.11.2007 of respondent No.1 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 shall re-consider the objections of the petitioners in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:07.02.2008 mdaa