HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.171 of 2007 Between: Mudragada Satyanarayana and three others … Appellants And The State of A.P. rep., by District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada and two others … Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the appellants : Shri V. Venkataramana Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition March 12, 2007 Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J. Whether the decision of Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada (for short, ‘the Collector’) under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice and non-application of mind is the question, which arises for determination in this appeal filed against order dated 8-2-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1837 of 2007 whereby he negatived the appellants’ challenge to the acquisition of their land. The appellants are residents of Veeravaram Village, Kadiam Mandal, East Godavari District. They own small parcels of dry land. The particulars of their land are as under: SCHEDULE District: East Godavari Mandal: Kadiam Village: Veeravaram Survey No. Description of the land Reputed owner Extent in Ac.cts. 59/1A Dry Mudragada Satyanarayana S/o.Ramarao Mudragada Rambabu S/o.Ramarao 2.30 59/2 Dry Mudragada Satyanarayana S/o.Ramarao Mudragada Rambabu S/o.Ramarao 1.82 60/1 Dry Mudragada Suranna S/o.Ramarao 2.14 60/2 Dry Mudragada Suranna S/o.Ramarao 1.74 Total 8.00 Vide notification dated 10-10-2006 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada proposed to acquire the appellants’ land for a public purpose, namely, providing house-sites to weaker sections under “Indiramma Pathakam”. On receipt of the notice issued by Land Acquisition Officer and Sub- Collector, Rajahmundry (respondent No.3) under Section 5A, the petitioners filed detailed objections. After a gap of few days, some of them filed additional objections. They pointed out that large tracts of government land were available, which could be used for execution of “Indiramma Pathakam” and there was no justification to acquire their land. They further pointed out that they had developed nursery and planted trees and, therefore, the land was not suitable for housing purposes. Respondent No.3 furnished his remarks on the objections of the petitioners. Thereafter, the Collector passed order dated 19-1- 2007 whereby he rejected the objections by observing that the same are devoid of merit and directed respondent No.3 to submit draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act for approval. For the sake of reference, the relevant portions of order dated 19-1-2007 are extracted below: “ORDER: In the reference 1st cited, the District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada has issued notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land in an extent of Ac.8.00 cts. in R.S.No.59/1A etc. of Veeravaram (V) of Kadiam Mandal for provision of house sites to poor and weaker sections under INDIRAMMA Scheme. Notice u/s 5A of the Act was served on the landowner/ interested person and published in the locality calling objections in any. Enquiry u/s 5A was conducted by the Sub Collector, Rajahmundry on 07.11.2006. The landowners 1. Sri Mudragadda Rambabu S/o.Ramarao, 2. Sri Mudragada Satyanarayana S/o.Ramarao and 3. Sri Mudragada Suranna S/o.Ramarao of Veeravaram village filed objections against the acquisition of their land. The objections have been duly inquired into by the Sub Collecgtor, Rajahmundry on 07.11.2006 who submitted his remarks along with the objections filed by the landowners. I. Objections raised by Sri Mudragada Rambabu S/o.Rama Rao: Objection 1: That the entire extent of Ac.2.30 cents dry land in R.S.No.59/1A proposed for acquisition originally belongs to Mudragada Rambabu, S/o.Rama Rao the same having been allotted towards his share in a partition affected in the year 1983 as evidenced by Memorandum of Partition dated 25/2/1983. Mudragada Rambabu, in all, got only Ac.4.92 cents of dry land and the same alone is the total extent of agricultural land owned and possessed by him and that he is a small farmer. Remarks: The petitioner owns the following lands in Veeravaram village: Sl.No. Sy.No. Classification Extent Ac.cts. 1. 55/8 Dry 0.18 2. 57/1 Dry 6.89 3. 58/1 Dry 6.27 4. 59/1A Dry 2.32 Even after excluding the extent proposed to be acquired now, his holding exceeds 10 Acres of Dry land. Hence the petitioner’s objection that he is a small farmer is not true. Objection 2: That to meet family necessities Mudragada Rambabu the owner of Ac.2-32 cents land in Syrvey No.59/1A sold away Ac.0-32 cents to Saladi Kasi Visweswararao in February, 2002 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre on receipt of total consideration under registered sale deed dated 22- 9-2006 following an agreement for sale dated 29-2- 2002. Therefore, out of Ac.2-32 cents, Ac.0-32 cents belongs to Saladi Kasi Visweswararao. Consequently, Mudragada Rambabu is presently owning and possessing only Ac.4-60 cents of dry land and is totally dependent on the same. Mudragada Rambabu, being small farmer cannot be made to suffer by acquiring almost half of his land. Remarks: This sale transaction dt.22.9.2006 was executed just two days after the inspection of the said land by the Land Acquisition Officer, knowing fully well that the land would be put to acquisition, it is nothing but a deliberate attempt to mislead the L.A.O. and derail the L.A. process. Objection 3: That earlier during the year 1969-70 and again in the year 1977 extensive lands belonging to the claimant’s forefathers were acquired by Government for the purpose of distribution as house sites, it also acquired some land in Veeravaram Village in the year 1969-70 for Vemagiri Pumping Scheme. Every time the Government proposes to acquire private land for distribution amongst landless poor, the lands of the objector or his family members are affected. Such policy is seriously affecting the claimant’s family only. It is for the reason the claimant’s family would be virtually landless poor if not small farmers. There is absolutely no justification for any person or government to make the claimant and his family members landless poor person, for the benefit and sake of the other landless poor person. Remarks: It is true that an extent of Ac.1.50cts. in S.No.59 of Veeravaram village was previously acquired for Vemagiri Pumping Scheme from his forefathers. It is also true that an extent of Ac.2.50 cts. in S.No.30/2C of Damireddipalli (V) was previously acquired from his forefathers for provision of housesites. But appropriate compensation was paid for the lands acquired. The lands said to be acquired previously are from the forefathers of the claimant but not from the claimant himself and it is not at all a valid plea for exemption. Even after the acquisition of the proposed land, the petitioner would be left with Ac.13.36 cts. extent of land. Hence he would not become landless. Objection 4: The land proposed for acquisition is fit for cultivation, particularly for development of nurseries, in view of its peculiar and advantageous location. If the land proposed for acquisition is converted into house sites, the same would result in damaging very valuable nursery. The claimant therefore pray that the land of Ac.2-30 cents in R.S.No.59/1A proposed for acquisition may not be acquired. Remarks: The objections of the claimant are not at all a bar for acquisition. The proposed land is quite suitable for construction of houses and hence it is proposed for acquisition. The acquisition would result in the damage of very valuable Nursery is not tenable because the plants raised in pots and polythene bags can easily be shifted to some other place. Objection 5: That there are other lands, which are not covered by nurseries and more suitable as house sites located in the close vicinity of village proper. The land proposed for acquisition from the claimant is far away from the village and not at all suitable as house site. Remarks: There are no other suitable lands nearer to Veeravaram village except the land of the objector. H i s contention that his land is faraway from the village and not at all suitable for house sites is not true since the proposed land is about ½ km from the village and is suitable in all respects. Objection 6: That huge amounts were invested on the land proposed for acquisition, by raising coconut plantation and other plants meant to be sold. Presently, there are 150 coconut trees and other threes on Ac.2-30 cents in Survey No.59/1A. There is a bore well in the land proposed for acquisition, which costs not less than Rs.2,00,000/-. The present market value of the land proposed for acquisition is more than Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, besides the value of the trees thereon. Considering the value of the land; and the same is only source of income for the landowner whose family is totally dependant on their land for their survival and the claimant is a landless or small farmer the claimant pray that his land may not be acquired, as otherwise the landowner and family members would become virtually paupers and devoid of any source of living. Remarks: It is true that there is a bore point in the land. As regards the coconut plantation and other trees, suitable compensation would be determined as per existing norms at the time of passing Award. Appropriate compensation for the lands would be arrived and paid duly following the procedure under the Act. It is not true that the land proposed for acquisition is the only source of income for the landowner as the objector gets income through Nursery business from the remaining extent of land. It is also not true that he is a small farmer and his family would become paupers and devoid of any source of living. In fact, the objector is a big farmer and has landed property to an extent of Ac.15.66 cts. even after acquisition, the petitioner would be left with Ac.13.36 cts. of land. Objection 7: That my family members tombs (SAMADHULU) were situated in the above said survey numbers and we celebrate yearly death anniversary of my family members in the above said survey numbers. Remarks: This contention is not true because the tombs are not covered in the proposed land under acquisition. II. Objections raised by Sri Mudragada Satyanarayana S/o.Rama Rao: Objection 1: That the entire extent of Ac.1.82 cents dry land in R.S.No.59/2 proposed for acquisition originally belongs to Mudragada Satyanarayana S/o.Rama Rao the same having been allotted towards his share in a partition effected in the year 1983 as evidenced by Memorandum of Partition dated 25/2/1983. Mudragada Satyanarayana, in all, got only Ac.4.50 cents of dry land and the same alone is the total extent of agricultural land owned and possessed by him. As such he is a small farmer. Remarks: The petitioner owns the following lands in Veeravaram village: Sl.No. Sy.No. Classification Extent Ac.cts. 1. 59/1A Dry 0.68 2. 58/2A Dry 1.82 3. 68 Dry 1.85 4. 69 Dry 10.67 Total: 15.02 Even after excluding the extent proposed to be acquired now, his holding exceeds Ac.5.00 cts. of dry land. Hence the petitioner’s objection that he is a small farmer is not true. Objection 2: That to meet family necessities, Mudragada Satyanarayana the owner of Ac.0.68 cents land in Survey No.59/1A sold away Ac.0.68 cents to Saladi Kasi Visweswara Rao in February, 2002 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre and on receipt of total consideration under registered sale deed dated 22-9-2006 following an agreement for sale dated 29-2-2002. Consequently, Mudragada Satyanarayana is presently owning and possessing only Ac.3.82 cents of dry land and he is totally depending on the same. Mudragada Satyanarayana, being small farmer cannot be made to suffer by acquiring almost half of his land. Remarks: This sale transaction dt.22.9.2006 was executed just two days after the inspection of the said land by the Land Acquisition Officer knowing fully well that the land would be put to acquisition, it is nothing but a deliberate attempt to mislead the L.A.O. and derail the L.A. process. Objection 3: That earlier during the year 1969-70 and again in the year 1977 extensive lands belonging to the claimant’s forefathers were acquired by Government for the purpose of distribution as house sites. It also acquired some land in Veeravaram Village in the year 1969-70 for Vemagiri Pumping Scheme. Every time the Government proposes to acquire private land for distribution amongst landless poor, the lands of the objector or his family members is effected. Such policy is seriously affecting the claiimant’s family only. It is for the reason the claimant’s family would be virtually landless poor if not small farmers. There is absolutely no justification for any person or government to make the claimant and his family members landless poor person, for the benefit and sake of other landless poor person. Remarks: It is true that an extent of Ac.1.50cts. in S.No.59 of Veeravaram village was previously acquired for Vemagiri Pumping Scheme from his forefathers. It is also true that an extent of Ac.2.50 cts. in S.No.30/2C of Damireddipalli (V) was previously acquired from his forefathers for provision of housesites. But appropriate compensation was paid for the lands acquired. The lands said to be acquired previously are from the forefathers of the claimant but not from the claimant himself and it is not at all a valid plea for exemption. Even after the acquisition of the proposed land, the petitioner would be left with Ac.13.20 cts. extent of land. Hence he would not become landless. Objection 4 The land proposed for acquisition is fit for cultivation, particularly for development of nurseries, in view of its peculiar and advantageous location. If the land proposed for acquisition is converted into house sites, the same would result in damaging very valuable nursery. The claimant therefore pray that the land of Ac.1-82 cents in R.S.No.59/2 proposed for acquisition may not be acquired. Remarks: The objections of the claimant are not at all a bar for acquisition. The proposed land is quite suitable for construction of houses and hence it is proposed for acquisition. The acquisition would result in the damage of very valuable Nursery is not tenable because the plants raised in pots and polythene bags can easily be shifted to some other place. Objection 5: That there are other lands, which are not covered by nurseries and more suitable as house sites located in the close vicinity of village proper. The land proposed for acquisition from the claimant is far away from the village and not at all suitable as house site. Remarks: There are no other suitable lands nearer to Veeravaram village except the land of the objector. H i s contention that his land is faraway from the village and not at all suitable for house sites is not true since the proposed land is about ½ km. from the village and is suitable in all respects. Objection 6: That huge amounts were invested on the land proposed for acquisition, by raising coconut plantation and other plants meant to be sold. Presently, there are 110 coconut trees and other threes on Ac.1-82 cents in Survey No.59/2. There is a bore well in the land proposed for acquisition, which costs not less than Rs.2,00,000/- hand pump worth Rs.6,000/- and a Cattle Shed with compound wall worth Rs.6,00,000/-. The present market value of the land proposed for acquisition is more than Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, besides the value of the trees thereon. Considering the value of the land; and the same is only source of income for the landowner whose family is totally dependant on their land for their survival and the claimant is a landless or small farmer the claimant pray that his land may not be acquired, as otherwise the landowner and family members would become virtually paupers and devoid of any source of living. Remarks: It is true that there is a bore point in the land. As regards the coconut plantation and other trees, suitable compensation would be determined as per existing norms at the time of passing Award. Appropriate compensation for the lands would be arrived and paid duly following the procedure under the Act. It is not true that the land proposed for acquisition is the only source of income for the landowner as the objector gets income through Nursery business from the remaining extent of land. It is also not true that he is a small farmer and his family would become paupers and devoid of any source of living. In fact, the objector is a big farmer and has landed property to an extent of Ac.15.02 cts. even after acquisition, the petitioner would be left with Ac.13.20 cts. of land. Objection 7: That the claimants family members tombs (SAMADHULU) were situated in the above said survey numbers and they celebrate yearly death anniversary of their family members in the above said survey numbers. Remarks: This contention is not true because the tombs are not covered in the proposed land under acquisition. III. Objections raised by Sri Mudragada Suranna S/o. Rama Rao: Objection 1: That the entire extent of Ac.2.14 cents dry land in R.S.No.60/1 proposed for acquisition originally belongs to Mudragada Suranna, S/o.Rama Rao the same having been allotted towards his share in a partition affected in the year 1983 as evidenced by Memorandum of Partition dated 25/2/1983. Mudragada Rambabu, in all, got only Ac.4.84 cents of dry land and the same alone is the total extent of agricultural land owned and possessed by him As such he is a small farmer. Mudragada Suranna being small farmer cannot be made to suffer by acquiring almost half of his land. Remarks: The petitioner owns the following lands in Veeravaram village: Sl.No. Sy.No. Classification Extent Ac.cts. 1. 60/1 Dry 4.84 2. 60/2 Dry 2.69 3. 28/3 Dry 1.64 4. 40 Dry 0.70 Total: 9.87 Even after excluding the extent proposed to be acquired now, his holding exceeds Ac.5.00 cts. of dry land. Hence the petitioner’s objection that he is a small farmer is not true. Objection 2: That earlier during the year 1969-70 and again in the year 1977 extensive lands belonging to the claimant’s forefathers were acquired by Government for the purpose of distribution as house sites, it also acquired some land in Veeravaram Village in the year 1969-70 for Vemagiri Pumping Scheme. Every time the Government proposes to acquire private land for distribution amongst landless poor, the lands of the objector or his family members are affected. Such policy is seriously affecting the claimant’s family only. It is for the reason the claimant’s family would be virtually landless poor if not small farmers. There is absolutely no justification for any person or government to make the claimant and his family members landless poor person, for the benefit and sake of the other landless poor person. Remarks: It is true that an extent of Ac.1.50 cts. in S.No.59 of Veeravaram village was previously acquired for Vemagiri Pumping Scheme from his forefathers. It is also true that an extent of Ac.2.50 cts. in S.No.30/2C of Damireddipalli (V) was previously acquired from his forefathers for provision of housesites. But appropriate compensation was paid for the lands acquired. The lands said to be acquired previously are from the forefathers of the claimant but not from the claimant himself and it is not at all a valid plea for exemption. Even after the acquisition of the proposed land, the petitioner would be left with Ac.7.73 cts. extent of land. Hence he would not become landless. Objection 3: The land proposed for acquisition is fit for cultivation, particularly for development of nurseries, in view of its peculiar and advantageous location. If the land proposed for acquisition is converted into house sites, the same would result in damaging very valuable nursery. The claimant therefore pray that the land of Ac.2-14 cents in R.S.No.60/1 proposed for acquisition may not be acquired. Remarks: The objections of the claimant are not at all a bar for acquisition. The proposed land is quite suitable for construction of houses and hence it is proposed for acquisition. The acquisition would result in the damage of very valuable Nursery is not tenable because the plants raised in pots and polythene bags can easily be shifted to some other place. Objection 4: That there are other lands, which are not covered by nurseries and more suitable as house sites located in the close vicinity of village proper. The land proposed for acquisition from the claimant is far away from the village and not at all suitable as house site. Remarks: There are no other suitable lands nearer to Veeravaram village except the land of the objector. H i s contention that his land is faraway from the village and not at all suitable for house sites is not true since the proposed land is about ½ km from the village and is suitable in all respects. Objection 5: That huge amounts are invested on the land proposed for acquisition, by raising coconut plantation and other plants meant to be sold. Presently, there are 150 coconut trees and other threes on Ac.2-14 cents in Survey No.60/1. There are two bore wells in the land proposed for acquisition, which costs not less than Rs.4,00,000/-. The present market value of the land proposed for acquisition is more than Rs.15,00,000/- per acre, besides the value of the trees thereon. Considering the value of the land; and the same is only source of income for the landowner whose family is totally dependant on their land for their survival and the claimant is a landless or small farmer the claimant pray that his land may not be acquired, as otherwise the landowner and family members would become virtually paupers and devoid of any source of living. Remarks: No bore wells are existing in the said land. As regards the coconut plantation and other trees, suitable compensation would be determined as per existing norms at the time of passing Award. Appropriate compensation for the lands would be arrived and paid duly following the procedure under the Act. It is not true that the land proposed for acquisition is the only source of income for the landowner as the objector gets income through Nursery business from the remaining extent of land. It is also not true that he is a small farmer and his family would become paupers and devoid of any source of living. In fact, the objector is a big farmer and has landed property to an extent of Ac.9.87 cts. even after acquisition, the petitioner would be left with Ac.7.73 cts. of land. Objection 6: That my family members tombs (SAMADHULU) were situated in the above said survey numbers and we celebrate yearly death anniversary of my family members in the above said survey numbers. Remarks: This contention is not true because the tombs are not covered in the proposed land under acquisition. After considering the remarks offered by the Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Collector, Rajahmundry on the objections of the landowner, it is opined that there are no valid grounds in the objections. The objections are devoid of merit and hence rejected. The Sub Collector, Rajahmundry is requested to submit D.D. u/s.6 of the L.A. Act for approval at once.” Immediately thereafter, draft declaration under Section 6 was issued and was published in the official gazette dated 22-1-2007. The appellants challenged notification dated 10-10-2006 and the draft declaration in Writ Petition No.1837 of 2007. They pleaded that the enquiry held by respondent No.3 and decision taken on their objections was farce inasmuch as neither of the officers applied their mind to the detailed objections/additional objections and the relevant documents produced before them to prove the availability of alternative land, which could be utilised for execution of “Indiramma Pathakam”, and their land was not suitable for housing purposes The learned Single Judge briefly adverted to the factual matrix of the case and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following observations: “…… The State under the provisions of the Act is required to hear the objections of landowners to the acquisition proposals. It is not as though the landowners and the State are joint decision makers in the