IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3443 of 1995 Between: 1. Varri Narayanappa, S/o Late Appadu, R/o. Kothapalem, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District 2. Boddu Kannayya, S/o. Sannibabu, R/o. Kothapalem, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District 3. Boddu Mili Chandrayya, S/o. Appadu, R/o. Kothapalem, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4. Varri Sanyasappadu, S/. Simhachalam, R/o. Kothapalem, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. District Collector, Vizianagaram. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records relating to Rc.No.3930/92 E2, dated 18-5-1994 of the first respondent and quash the same and to consequential direction declaring the petitioners are landless poor persons and small farmers. For the Petitioners: MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI, Advocate For the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners, in effect, seek to quash the Notification dated 18-5-1994 in Rc.No.3930/92 E2 issued by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”), proposing to acquire an extent of Ac.4-49 cents of land situated in survey Nos.137/1 to 137/23 of Kothapalem village, Bondapalli Mandal of Vizianagaram District for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4, who are small farmers, claim to be in possession of Ac.1-33 cents, Ac.1-40 cents, Ac.0-56 cents and Ac.0-54 cents respectively out of the land proposed to be acquired, having purchased the same for valuable consideration. It is their case that though sufficient government land is available, the respondents at the instance of local politicians, sought to acquire the land in question by issuing the impugned notification. It is stated that for the notice dated 10-6-1994 issued by the second respondent-Land Acquisition Officer calling for objections, the petitioners submitted their objections and requested the second respondent to drop the acquisition proceedings. Without considering their request and without passing any orders in that respect, the second respondent is trying to take possession of their lands. Questioning the action of the respondents and the impugned notification, the present writ petition is filed. Denying the allegations, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram filed counter. It is stated that no other government land is available except the land proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society, and that there is no political interference in it. The impugned notification was approved and the same was published in the District Gazette and the substance of the same was published in local newspapers. It is stated that draft notification under Section 6 of the Act was also approved and the same was published in the District Gazette. At this stage, the present writ petition is filed. It is stated that in the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram examined the objections received, and disposed of the same. Thus, the second respondent prays to dismiss the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners except making bald assertions that in spite of availability of other government land, the respondents at the instance of local politicians are seeking to acquire their land, have not placed any material or at least the survey numbers and their extents to prove that there was government land available in the village, which was suitable for providing house sites to weaker sections. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondents that no other government land is available and that there is no political interference in it and that the land in question is being acquired to implement the policy of the Government, namely to provide house sites to weaker sections. Further it is also their case that the objections of the petitioners were examined in the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act and they were rejected. In the absence of any material produced by the petitioners to show that in spite of other government land is available, the respondents were bent upon to acquire the land of the petitioners at the instance of local politicians, no exception can be taken to the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the land in question for a genuine public purpose, namely for providing house sites to weaker sections. In the above view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned notification. The writ petition has no merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 06-08-2004 Svv To 1. The District Collector, Vizianagaram. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Vizianagaram. 3. Two CCs. to the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT). 4. Two CD copies.