HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18584 of 2007 23.01.2008 Between: Smt. Sabbela Rajamma … Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18584 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings, dated 22.07.2007 issued by respondent No.2 whereby he rejected the objections filed by the petitioner against the proposed acquisition of Ac.2.30 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.5/2A and 6/4 situated at Pyna Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, for providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma Scheme. Initially, when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued, enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. The petitioner filed W.P.No.14682 of 2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 20.06.2006, wherein the respondents were directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner on receipt of notice, filed her objections. Purporting to consider those objections, respondent No.3 passed order on 31.10.2006 by rejecting the objections of the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.24445 of 2006 mainly on the ground that respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to decide on the objections filed by the petitioner. This Court by order, dated 12.06.2007 allowed the said writ petition and set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 while leaving the competent authority free to pass an appropriate order on the objections submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order on 22.06.2007 whereby he rejected the objections filed by the petitioner. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No.2 is without any application of mind. He stated that a perusal of the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 shows that respondent No.2 had merely copied the order passed by respondent No.3 and subscribed his signature. Learned counsel further submitted that the objections filed by the petitioner were not properly considered by respondent No.2 and that respondent No.2 failed to consider the desirability or otherwise of acquiring the land of the petitioner, which is a double crop wet land when alternative lands are available. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition says that the order passed by respondent No.2 does not suffer from any legal infirmities warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. As already noted, on an earlier occasion, the order of respondent No.3 was set aside on the ground that under Section 5A of the Act, he has no jurisdiction to dispose of the objections. It is no doubt true that the language of the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is identical. But, however, I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the order impugned in this writ petition, respondent No.2 has failed to apply his mind merely on the ground that both the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are ipsissima verba. The earlier order passed by the Joint Collector was set aside only on the ground that he was not delegated with the power to dispose of the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act. If respondent No.2, on going through the order passed by the Joint Collector is satisfied that the same is in order, there was no necessity for him to change the form in which the Joint Collector passed the order. Respondent No.2 is basically an administrative functionary exercising quasi-judicial power, while passing orders under Section 5A of the Act. He has accepted the remarks submitted by respondent No.4, who held enquiry and submitted his remarks. Eventually, the question to be considered is whether the objections raised by the petitioner were objectively considered by the enquiring authority, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer and respondent No.2, who passed order after considering the objections and the remarks placed before him. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional or legal error raised by the petitioner, which was not considered by the enquiring authority and respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid heavy emphasis on the objection filed by the petitioner, which was noted as objection No.8 in the order passed by respondent No.2. For proper appreciation of the contention of the learned counsel, the same along with the remarks of the enquiring authority, is extracted hereunder: Sl.No. Objection Remarks 8. There are surplus lands surrendered to the government by the excess land holders under land ceiling act and the endowment lands and also the Government waste lands are also are available in the Pyna Village which are to be proposed for house construction. There are no other suitable government lands, endowment lands and surplus lands in this village. From the objection reproduced above, it is clear that except vaguely contending that surplus lands surrendered to the Government under the Land Reforms Act and certain endowment and Government wastelands are available in the Village, no details of the said lands have been furnished by the petitioner. In the absence of any such details, the respondents are not expected to prove in the negative that no such lands are available in the Village. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the land of the petitioner is a double crop wetland, the respondents ought not to have acquired the same. Such contention would have had some force, if the petitioner was able to plead and substantiate by filing material before the respondents that alternative lands, which are more suitable for house sites are available and, therefore, their wet land cannot be acquired. If no alternative lands, which are more suitable, are available, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that the State cannot provide house sites to the houseless poor persons in the rural areas by acquiring wet lands of other private persons. After an oral consideration of the entire case, I am of the view that the order passed by respondent No.2 does not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WVMP.No.2985 of 2007 is dismissed and interim order, dated 30.08.2007, is vacated. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd JANUARY, 2008. kvni