THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.2482 of 2007 ORDER: A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published by the District Collector, Krishna, the 1st respondent, on 05.09.2006, proposing to acquire Ac.0.81 cents of land in survey No.402/3A and 404/4A of Chodavaram Village, Penumuloor Mandal, Krishna District, for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor. The petitioner is the owner of the same, having purchased it in the year 1990. At present she is residing in the United States. A notice proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, was issued. Since the petitioner is not residing in the village, it was served upon her father. It is stated that the father of the petitioner is said to have informed the respondents that he has no instructions in the matter. The enquiry was concluded and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the entire proceedings. She contends that the acquisition of rich fertile agricultural lands for the purpose of providing house sites, is opposed to the policy enunciated by the Government and that no enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, was held in the eye of law. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, denying the allegations. It is stated that the notice under Section 5-A of the Act was served upon none other than the father of the petitioner and still no objections were raised. It is stated that the procedure prescribed by law was followed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for land Acquisition. The petitioner does not attribute any defects to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. As required under the Act, the enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted. The petitioner is residing abroad. Therefore, the notice was served upon her father. Objections, if any, ought to have been raised by or on behalf of the petitioner. However, no such objections were filed. The respondents proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner has no objection for acquisition, and accordingly, issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Though the policy framed by the Government is to discourage acquisition of fertile lands for providing house sites, it cannot be said that there is absolute bar in this regard. Much would depend upon the suitability of the lands for house sites and availability of non- agricultural land for such purpose. These, however, are matters, which need to be projected in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has to blame herself for her non-representation in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Even according to her the notice was served upon her father. There cannot be any better person to represent the petitioner, in such enquiry, than her father. The opportunity was not availed. Even before this Court, it is not urged as to how the acquisition is opposed to law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 31.05.2010 GJ