IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1342 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/01/2008 in WP NO : 1658 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Thondapu Rani Sarojini Devi W/o.Late Venkata Krishna Reddy Residents of Voolapalli village, Bikkavolu Mandal East Godavari District 2 Thondapu Rama prasad W/o.Late Venkata Krishna Reddy Residents of Voolapalli village, Bikkavolu Mandal East Godavari District 3 Thondapu Veera Raghava Reddy S/o.Late Sathaiah Residents of Voolapalli village, Bikkavolu Mandal East Godavari District 4 Thondapu Venkata Lakshmi W/o.Late Achyutha Rama Krishna Reddy Residents of Voolapalli village, Bikkavolu Mandal East Godavari District 5 Thondapu Venkata Satya Sai Krishna Reddy W/o.Late Achyutha Rama Krishna Reddy Residents of Voolapalli village, Bikkavolu Mandal East Godavari District petitioners 5 and 6 are being minors rep.by theri mother/nex friend T.Venkata lakshmi 4th petitioner herein 6 Thondapu Nikhila D/o.Late Achyutha Rama Krishna Reddy Residents of Voolapalli village, Bikkavolu Mandal East Godavari District petitioners 5 and 6 are being minors rep.by theri mother/nex friend T.Venkata lakshmi 4th petitioner herein ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada 2 The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-collector Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Bikkavolu Mandal East Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: ( Per ANIL R. DAVE, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2008 passed in W.P.No. 1658 of 2007, this appeal has been ﬁled by the persons whose lands have been acquired by the respondent-State authorities for the purpose of providing housing to poor persons under a housing scheme framed by the Government authorities. The petition challenging the acquisition proceedings has been rejected and therefore this appeal has been ﬁled. While rejecting the petition, the learned single Judge has considered the fact that an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), had been conducted and, in fact, the land in question was required for the purpose of providing housing to poor persons. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had not been conducted properly. He has further submitted that the appellants are small farmers whose lands had been acquired in the past and they will be put to diﬃculties if the present land acquisition is also given effect to. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-authorities and have gone through the petition as well as counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent-Government authorities before the learned single Judge. Upon hearing the learned advocates and upon perusal of the record, we ﬁnd that enquiry under Section 5-A had been conducted properly and each objection raised by the appellants had been duly considered. It is a ﬁnding of fact that even after acquisition of the land in question, the appellants would be having some other land so that they can sustain themselves. Looking to the fact that Section 4 (1) notiﬁcation was issued on 19.10.2006, in our opinion, possession of the land in question must have already been taken by the Government authorities and must have been given to the needy houseless poor persons. We do not ﬁnd any reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. -------------------------- ANIL R. DAVE, CJ --------------------------------- R. SUBHASH REDDY, J DATE: 31/10/2008 CVM