IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 22446 of 1996 Between: 1 D.Jogulamma W/o D.Ramamurthy, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagarm Dist 2 Pinisetti Atchamma W/o Late Muthalu, Kotavuru village, S.Kota Mandal, Viziangar Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector , Vizianagram Dist 2 land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divsional Officer , Vizianagaram Dist 3 D. Rama Jogi, S/o. Late D. Rama Murthy, Hindu, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4 D. Gowru Naidu, S/o. Late D. Rama Murthy, Hindu, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5 D. Suryanarayana, S/o. Late D. Rama Murthy, Hindu, S. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. (RR 3 to 5 are brought on record as LR's of deceased 1st petitioner as per Court Order dated 18-9-2008 in WPMP No. 34417/2006) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to To issue a writ order direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus decalring the notification U/Sec. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act Published Viziangaram district Gazette Dt. 13/05/94 so far as thepetitioners lands in s.No.84/2, 84/3 of the extent of 0.56 and 0.66 cents in Kottur village in S.Kota Mandal, Vizizanagaram Dist is illegal and void Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.22446 of 1996 O R D E R: The 1st and 2nd original writ petitioners had questioned the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity ‘the Act’), dated 13-05-1994, for acquisition to the extent of petitioners’ lands in Sy. No.84/2, admeasuring Ac.0.56 cents and Sy.No.84/3, admeasuring Ac.0.66 cents at Kottur village in S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District, for the purpose of providing house sites for weaker sections of society. 2. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that they are owners of the aforesaid small extents and are, in fact, small farmers. They contend that on earlier occasion, the aforesaid lands were notified for acquisition under a similar Notification, dated 18-02-1986, whereupon the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.No.2412 of 1986 challenging the said acquisition, inter alia, on the ground that they are small farmers. The said writ petition was allowed on 11-03- 1987 directing the respondents to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 3. It is alleged that thereupon, the enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the objections and he sent a report in R.C.No.224/85 S.W.R-1, dated 06-06-1988, to the District Collector, confirming that the petitioners are small farmers and that proceedings be issued to drop the acquisition so far as the petitioners’ land is concerned. Thereafter, no further proceedings were taken up by the respondents and the petitioners continue to enjoy the land uninterrupted. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the said acquisition proceedings, in effect, have been dropped accepting their case that they are small farmers. 4. The petitioners alleged that after a gap of about eight years once again the impugned Notification is issued for self same purpose to provide house sites to weaker sections, in the similar manner seeking to acquire the petitioners’ land. The petitioners contend that they still continue to be small farmers and as the acquisition against their lands in question was dropped earlier, there is no reason as to why the respondents should once again attempt to acquire the land of the petitioners. 5. The petitioners alleged that in pursuance of the impugned Notification, Section 5-A enquiry was held and they submitted detailed objections. But in spite of the same, the petitioners received notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act, dated 10-08-1996, which clearly shows that the respondents are going ahead with the acquisition proceedings ignoring the objections of the petitioners. The petitioners thereupon, have approached this Court by this writ petition. 6. This writ petition was admitted on 18-10-1996 and in W.P.M.P.No.27730 of 1996, an interim direction was issued to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their lands in question pending further orders. However, it was clarified that award proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners who submits that the status of the petitioners as small farmers remains unchanged and when their objections at the earlier occasion in 1986 were accepted in acquisition proceedings and the said proceedings were dropped, there is no reason as to why the respondents should take up the self-same acquisition once again. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the said acquisition is mala fide and is only to deprive of their small extends, when vast extents of lands, which are available at the village, are left out. A copy of the objections, filed by the petitioners, dated 12-09-1994, was also produced along with the material papers and it is contended that there is no consideration on the petitioners’ objections and the entire exercise undertaken by the respondents is arbitrary, unauthorized and contrary to their own earlier proceedings. 8. As there is no counter-affidavit on record though the writ petition relates to the year 1996, the contention of the petitioners that they are small farmers and that the proceedings to the same acquisition proceedings against them were dropped on an earlier occasion is clearly apparent and even otherwise is not controverted. The petitioners themselves are small farmers and weaker sections of Society. The impugned action would deprive one weaker section to provide for another weaker section. This would clearly be arbitrary and unintelligible. 9. In view of the same, therefore, action of the respondents in issuing proceedings to acquire the land of the petitioners is unsustainable and would be contrary to purpose of empowering weaker sections. Further, the respondents are estopped from their earlier conduct of having dropped the acquisition against the petitioners in 1986, they cannot be justified in making fresh attempt to acquire in the year 1994 under the impugned notification. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the impugned Notification to the extent of the petitioners shall stand quashed. No costs. ________________ 21-11-2008 kvr