IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9285 of 2008 Between: Chakkapalli Pakeer Rao S/o.Venkataratnam Residing at Gurajanapalli village Karapa mandal East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition ) Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, East godavari District at Kakinada 3 The land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Karapa Mandal East Godavari District .....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 or direction more particularlyone in the anture of writ of mandamus declaring the Notification dated 20.10.2006 in REf.No.G2/2132/2006 to acquire the lands of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.3.00 in SY.No.142/1 and 142/2 of Gurajanapalli village,Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District and also proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent under section 5(A) of Land Acquisition Act in G2/2132/2006 dated 4.9.22007 as illegal, arbitrary, and set aside the same consequently directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9285 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.Nos.142/1 and 142/2 situated at Gurajanapalli Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavar District. While so, the respondents issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) proposing to acquire the said land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8765 of 2007 contending that inspite of availability of Government lands, the respondents are proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been conducted and the 2nd respondent having considered the objections of the petitioner, rejected the same vide his order, dated 04-04-2007, and that the petitioner did not question the said order. The writ appeal filed against the said order was sought to be withdrawn with liberty to question the order passed in pursuance of the enquiry made under Section 5-A of the Act and accordingly, the said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner questions the order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 5-A of the Act on the ground that the objections raised by the petitioner have not been considered and when better alternative Government lands are available, acquisition of the petitioner’s land is illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the enquiry has been conducted and the petitioner attended the enquiry and filed objections stating that there are some mango trees and sapota tress, but the same were damaged due to heavy rains occurred in August, 2005 and there is no way for his land and it is 3 to 4 feet low level. It is further stated that there are salt department lands, Endowment and Gram Panchayat lands and they are suitable for house sites. It is stated that he is not having much land and that he is not willing for the proposed acquisition of the land for house sites. The enquiry officer examined the matter and stated that the petitioner has got Ac.6-47 cents and as against the said land, only Ac.3-00 cents is proposed for acquisition as it is suitable for house sites and there are no Government lands available for house sites and, therefore, the objections have been rejected. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to point out better alternative Government lands even in the writ petition and, therefore, it cannot be said that better alternative Government lands are available for the purpose of house sites. As the acquisition of the land is only for the purpose of allotting house sites to the landless poor persons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 25-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}