THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.9675 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1. V. Subba Raju and another. PETITIONERS And 1. The Collecor, E.G. District, Kakinada, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for L.A. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners, whose lands have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) have filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the 1st respondent-the Collector, East Godavari District, dated 11.04.2008 in Ref.No.G2/2126/2006 passed under Section 5A of the Act. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the East Godavari District Gazette No.346/2006 dated 23.06.2006 proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.75 cents in S.No.68/5, Ac.0.48 cents in S.No.81/1B, Ac.0.35 cents in S.No.81/2B and Ac.1.52 cents in S.No.81/3B of Mulapet village, U.Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections, under Indiramma Programme. By invoking urgency clause, enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made. On a challenge made in W.P.No.16041 of 2006, this Court by order dated 18.12.2007 set aside the declaration and directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The 2nd respondent, therefore, served a notice on the petitioners on 29.01.2008 and conducted enquiry on 3.03.2008. The petitioners filed objections, inter alia, stating that there is Government land available in S.Nos.79 and 83; that they had no objection if the said lands are exchanged for the lands proposed to be acquired and that adjacent to the lands proposed, some more Government lands available in S.Nos.82 and 65. It was also contended that there was a standing Casuarina tope at the proposed lands. After hearing the petitioners and considering the objections the 2nd respondent made over the enquiry report for appropriate orders to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent considered the same and passed the impugned order. Heard Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the impugned order has been passed without any notice and without providing any opportunity to the petitioners. It is his contention that despite the objections were heard by the Land Acquisition Officer there is further obligation on the 1st respondent to hear the petitioners before passing the orders under Section 5A of the Act. The learned counsel further contends that the order was passed mechanically without considering the objections raised by the petitioners in proper perspective. Refuting the said allegations, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the petitioners were heard after due notice under Section 5A of the Act and after such enquiry, the Act does not provide for further notice of hearing by the 1st respondent. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the petitioners availed the opportunity before the 2nd respondent and submitted their objections. After hearing them, the 2nd respondent submitted a report to the 1st respondent and based on the said report, the 1st respondent passed orders and the same cannot be said to be illegal. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. There is no dispute that in pursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.16041 of 2006 dated 18.12.2007, the petitioners were put on notice of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioners attended the enquiry on 3.03.2008 and submitted their objections. Section 5A of the Act provides that any person interested in the land, which has been notified for acquisition may make any objection in writing to the Collector and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person and after hearing such objections and further enquiry, if any, either make a report in respect of the land notified under Section 4(1) of the Act or make different reports in respect of different parts of such land to the appropriate Government with his recommendations on the objections together with the record of proceedings held by him, for the decision of the Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. Applying the provisions of Section 5A (2) of he Act to the facts of the instant case, the procedure contemplated therein has been followed and the petitioners have been heard and a report has been submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent. On such submission of report, it is for the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders. There is no other provision, which require the 1st respondent to put the petitioners again on notice or afford an opportunity for making any further objections apart from the opportunity that is contemplated before the Collector as per sub section (2) of Section 5A of the Act. The petitioners have availed the opportunity and submitted their representations. Therefore, it must be held that the petitioners are not entitled for a further opportunity before passing an order by the 1st respondent under Section 5A of the Act. As mentioned above, the petitioners raised certain objections. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the said objections were duly considered. With regard to the objection of the petitioners that there is Government land in S.Nos.79 and 83, it has been found that the land in S.No.79 is under costal regulation zone near seashore and the same cannot be used for house sites. As regards the land in S.No.83, it was found that the same was assigned to the beneficiaries and on beneficiaries violating the conditions of patta, action is proposed against them. It was therefore observed that the said Government land is not available for house sites. With regard to the objection relating to the exchange of land it was observed that since the Government land was not available, the exchange of land does not arise. As regards the objection that vacant lands available in S.Nos.82 and 65, it was found that the land in S.No.82 belongs to one Rayavarapu Viswanadha Prabhu and the same has not been proposed for acquisition and some of his lands in S.No.68/2, 68/2C and 68/4 have already been acquired previously for house sites. Similarly, it was found that there are no trees existing on the proposed land at the time of notification and that it is inevitable to acquire the petitioners’ land as no other land is available. On a consideration as above, the land of the petitioners was found to be more suitable than the other lands and that it was inevitable to acquire the petitioners’ land for house sites. In the light of the said orders it cannot be said that the 1st respondent has not considered the objections of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners however would seek to rely on a judgment of this Court in Vanimisetti Venkateswaramma v. State of A.P.,[1] and would contend that the impugned order is perfunctory in nature. However, the order of the 1st respondent, if read in its entirety, shows that the 1st respondent has considered all the objections of the petitioners. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the judgment cited is not applicable to the facts of the case. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 28th February, 2011 Js. [1] 2009 (1) ALD 434