IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4175 of 2008 Between: Smt. Chilukuri Kamala @ Laxmikantham, W/o. (late) Udaya Bhaskara Ayyarao, R/o. D.No.2-86, Kandulapalem (V), Ramachandrapuram Mandal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the 2nd Respondent herein in ref/G3/4007/2006, dated 23.08.2006 published in Visalandhra Daily Newspaper on 23.08.2006 and consequential order passed in ref/G3/4007/2006, dated 02.12.2007 by the 2nd respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to retain from acquiring the land belonging to the Petitioner measuring an extent of Ac.2.00 cents situate in Sy.No.409 of Farijllipeta Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District and pass such other or further orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4175 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Notification dated 23.08.2006, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 (for short ‘the Act’) and order dated 02.12.2007 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the objections of the petitioner were rejected. By the impugned Notification, an extent of Ac.2.00 of land, comprised in Sy.No.409 of Farijellipeta village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to people belonging to weaker sections. In response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A of the Act, the petitioner submitted her objections. Initially, the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, passed order dated 02.11.2006, rejecting the petitioner’s objections. The said order was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.24511/2006 before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed by holding that the Joint Collector has no jurisdiction to decide on the objections filed by the petitioner. Later, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 on 02.12.2007, and this writ petition is filed, questioning the notification and the said order. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, after holding enquiry under Sec.5-A on 23.10.2006, submitted his remarks to respondent No.2, who, after considering the objections of the petitioner and the remarks of the Sub-Collector, passed the impugned order by rejecting the objections of the petitioner. A reading of the impugned order further shows that the petitioner mainly raised objection regarding the non-suitability of the land, apart from raising the contention that she has been cultivating the land. Respondent No.2 rejected both the objections by stating that the land is very much suitable having been located very adjacent to the village and that the same is kept fallow since 15 years, and that therefore, no crops were standing on the land. Respondent No.2 also gave a finding that no suitable Government or other lands are available for acquisition and that the petitioner is wealthy pattader having an extent of Ac.15.00 of land. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has not controverted any of these findings, except stating that respondent No.2 accepted the findings of the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry without application of mind. In my considered opinion, if respondent No.2 is satisfied with the remarks of respondent No.3, the Sub-Collector, he need not give independent reasons other than those, which are already given by respondent No.3 and extracted by respondent No.2. The concluding paragraph of the order of respondent No.2 shows that after considering the remarks of the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry on the objections of the petitioner, he opined that there are no valid grounds in the objections raised by the petitioner. I am, therefore, not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has not applied his mind while disposing of the objections of the petitioner. Having carefully examined the case, I am satisfied that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 does not suffer from any patent illegality or error of jurisdiction, warranting interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5457 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 28.02.2008 Dsr