THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 20498, 20882 and 22463 of 2009 Common order: In this three writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the notification dated 24.12.2008 issued by the District Collector, Krishna District, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as also the declaration issued by him under Section 6 of the Act, seeking to acquire their small extents of land, situated in Sy. Nos. 53 and 54 Mylavaram village and mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to quash the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are small farmers, and that they are ekeing out their livelihood by cultivating the small extents of lands in question, which the District Collector, Krishna, sought to acquire by the impugned notification and declaration. That even though there are vast extents of lands in the vicinity, and even though this fact was brought to the notice of the respondents in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the respondents without considering the said aspect, passed orders for acquisition of the lands in question. They further submitted that the petitioners have mortgaged the lands in questions and obtained loans for the education of their children. However, without considering these aspects, the respondents are bent upon depriving the valuable lands of the petitioners by seeking to acquire them. The respondents filed separate counters, which are similar. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition reiterating the counter averments submitted that pursuant to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the respondents issued three notices under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners and others who attended the enquiry on 23.01.2009 stated that they are not willing to part with their land stating that they are small farmers and that they have purchased the said lands for the purpose of constructing houses for themselves. He submitted that there no alternative government land in the village, which is suitable for house sites available. That as the petitioners contended that they are small farmers and purchased the lands for cultivation and constructing houses therein, the District Collector, Krishna, directed the Tahsildar, Mylavaram, to report about the eligibility of thepetitioners for allotment of houses under Indiramma Programme in Chandrala village. He further submitted that there are about 1000 beneficiaries for assignment of house sites under Indiramma Programme Phase III. That even though the petitioners are small farmers, but considering the fact that there is no alternative suitable land available for house sites and considering the number of beneficiaries, the respondents have rejected the objections of the petitioners, and no exception can be taken thereto. During the course of hearing the writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced village map and submitted that there is government land available in Sy. No. 63/1 situated adjacent to the village, which is more suitable for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections, however, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition disputed the said submission and contended that the government owns land in Sy. No. 63 and not Sy. No. 63/1 and that the land owned by the government in Sy. No. 63 is situated in a low lying area and is prone to submergence during rainy season. Having regard to the above rival contentions, this Court, to resolve the controversy, felt it appropriate to ascertain and verify the factual position, and vide orders dated 16.07.2010, appointed an Advocate Commissioner, to inspect the land in Sy. No. 63 and submit a status report to this Court on as to whether the land in situated in a low lying area and prone to submergence or is more suitable for construction of house sites. The Advocate Commissioner, having inspected the land, submitted his report by memo dated 19.08.2010, stating that the Mandal Surveyor attended the inspection along with the map and that the petitioners and the revenue officials indentified the land in Sy. No. 63, Mylavaram village and mandal, Krishna District, and that it is a low lying area and is prone to submergence during rainy season. He further reported that it is a vaagu poramboke land and is not fit for house sites, and that the revenue records clearly mentioned that the land in Sy. No. 63 is konda vaagu to an extent of Acs. 12.44 cents. That there is cultivation in Sy. No. 63. That though the petitioners represented that they are small farmers and not having any other land and only dependent on these lands by cultivation and some of them have also taken loans from financial institutions, but he found that the lands of the petitioners are near to the house sites already allotted to some other persons in Sy. No. 61. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition as also perused the village map and the report of the Advocate Commissioner. May be, the petitioners are small farmers, but that by itself cannot be a ground to quash to notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 thereof, particularly when the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued after conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and they would be paid the compensation. Though the petitioners contended that there is government land available in Sy. No. 63/1, Mylavaram village and mandal, Krishna District, the same was disputed by the learned Government Pleader, stating that government land is available in Sy. No. 63, but it is a low lying area and is prone to submergence during rainy season. The Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed to ascertain and verify the status of the land, as noted above, having inspected the land, report submitted stating that the government has land in Sy. No. 63 and that it is prone to submergence during rainy season and that it is not suitable for house sites. He further reported that the land in Sy. Nos. 53 and 54, which is sought to be acquired, is situated near to the village, and is more suitable for granting house sites and that already some persons were issued house sites in Sy. No.61. Thus, from the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is clear that the land in Sy. No. 63 is not suitable for house sites, but the lands in question, which are sought to be acquired, are more suitable for providing house sites under Indiramma Programme Phase III. It is stated in the counter that there are about 1000 beneficiaries identified for allotment of house sites. This apart, as is evident from the counters, considering the objection raised by the petitioners that they are small farmers and purchased the land in question for cultivation and construction of houses, the District Collector, Krishna, directed the Tahsildar, Mylavaram, to enquire and report as to whether the petitioners are entitled for house sites under Indiramma Programme, and the said report is awaited, and certainly, the respondents would take appropriate action, based on the report, and allot house sites to eligible petitioners. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned acquisition notification and the consequential steps taken by the District Collector, Krishna District. There is no merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 25th August, 2010 KSR