IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1275 of 2008 Between: Danapaneni Anasuyamma ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary-Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1275 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 07.01.2008 passed by respondent No.2 and the consequential declaration made under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) vide proceedings Rc.No.G4-2457/2007, dated 21.01.2008. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of different parcels of land comprised in Sy.No.567/2 etc. of Bandar East, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District. By impugned notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act, an extent of Ac.10.52 cents, belonging to the petitioner, was notified for acquisition for providing house sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma Scheme. In response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A of the Act, the petitioner submitted her objections to respondent No.3. After enquiry into the objections, by following the procedure prescribed for this purpose, respondent No.3 submitted his report to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, who is delegated with the power to decide the objections under Sec.5-A of the Act, rejected the objections of the petitioner, vide his proceedings in Rc.No.G4.2457/2007, dated 07.01.2008. Following the said order, the respondents issued declaration under Sec.6 of the Act on 21.01.2008. The petitioner assailed the above mentioned proceedings in the present writ petition. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the 2nd respondent suffers from legal infirmities. He contended that the petitioner mainly raised three objections viz. (1) before proposing to acquire the land, the respondents have not prepared the list of beneficiaries; (2) that there are Government lands available, and (3) that the land proposed to be acquired is wet land and not suitable for being used as house sites, inasmuch as, because of low lying nature of the land, there will be heavy water logging up to the depth of 6 feet. The learned counsel for the petitioner while saying that the first objection was referred to and dealt with by respondent No2, the objection relating to the non-suitability of the land is not properly dealt with. The learned counsel, however, conceded that since the petitioner has not given the extents and details of the availability of the Government land, he is not pressing the objection relating to the availability of Government lands. I have seriously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In her objections, the petitioner, inter alia stated that her land is wet land which is fit for raising two crops, that it is very low lying, that it is susceptible for water logging up to the depth of one feet even when there were small rains, and that during 2006 water upto the depth of 6 feet got stagnated. She further stated that in order to make the land fit for constructing houses, heavy amounts have to be invested. This objection is dealt with by the 2nd respondent in the following manner: “The land proposed for acquisition is wet land and it is existing in the middle of the alignment. Every wet land requires leveling about one feet to convert into house sites. The Government have followed all the guidelines stipulated under the Act. The objection of the petitioner cannot be considered for deletion of her land from the proposed acquisition.” As could be seen from the impugned notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act, the purpose of acquisition is to provide house sites to weaker sections of the society. In order to provide shelter to persons belonging to the lower strata of the society, which undoubtedly is an avowed public purpose, the Government exercised its power of eminent domain by invoking the provisions of the Act. In this process, the landowners who object to the proposed acquisition, failed to show that alternative lands are available. The action of the government in seeking to acquire private lands to achieve the above mentioned purpose, cannot be found fault with. In the absence of existence of more suitable lands, evidently the wetlands are proposed to be acquired by the respondents. Even according to the petitioner, the lands proposed to be acquired can be converted into house sites, but not without spending money on raising the level of the lands. The economic feasibility of acquisition is a matter which is best left to the State, and in my considered opinion, unless the petitioner is able to show any legal infirmity, arbitrariness or mala fides in the action of the State while exercising its power of eminent domain, the petitioner is not entitled to legitimately question the wisdom of the State to acquire a low lying land, in the absence of the petitioner being able to show that other lands which are more suitable are available. As the petitioner admittedly failed to give details of any such availability of alternative lands, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire her lands cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel of dismissal of this writ petition, WPMP.1526/2008 stands dismissed as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 31.01.2008 Dsr