IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.6643 of 2008 Between: Pulla Raja Rao, s/o late Venkata Rao, Sarpavaam Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the impugned action of respondents in entering into the lands of petitioner and disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment over his property in Sy.No.184/10 of an extent of Acs.3.17 cents, Sy.No.184/11 of an extent of Ac.0.97 cents, in Sy.No.184/12 of an extent of Ac.1.57 cents, in Sy.No.184/13 of an extent of Acs.2.38 cents, in Sy.No.184/14 of an extent of Ac.0.16 cents, totalling to Acs.8.25 cents of Sarpavaram village, Kakinada Rural Mandal , East Godavari District and issuing the impugned proceedings in Ref.G2/4408/2007 dated 26-02- 2008 by 2nd respondent without properly disposing the objections of petitioner under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by considering the various contentions and objections raised and without completing the land acquisition proceedings against the principles of natural justice and without following the due process of law, illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc. and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings Ref. G2/4408/2007 dated 26-02-2008 of 2nd respondent and direct respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner from landed property in Sy.No.184/10 of an extent of Acs.3.17 cents, Sy.No.184/11 of an extent of Ac 0.97 cents, in Sy.No.184/12 of an extent of Ac.1.57 cents, in Sy.No.184/13 of an extent of Acs.2.38 cents, in Sy.No.184/14 of an extent of Ac 0.16 cents, totalling to Acs.8.25 cents of Sarpavaram village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, without disposing the objections raised under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act by proper application of mind and considering various contentions and objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding any further in the matter and to grant such other reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. N. V. ANANTHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER: - Petitioner states that he is the protected tenant of an extent of Acs.8- 25 cents in different survey numbers of Sarpavaram village and the Government issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). He further states that respondent authorities have not properly considered his objections in the enquiry as provided for under Section 5-A of the Act and second respondent – District Collector issued the proceedings in Ref.No.G2/4408/2007 dated 26-02-2008, directing third respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer to submit draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. He also states that pursuant to the proceedings impugned, respondent authorities are entering into and disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Assailing the said action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for petitioner, Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, is that without holding enquiry as provided for under Section 5-A of the Act, the Collector passed the proceedings on 26-02-2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. However, the same is not correct. A perusal of the said proceedings clearly indicates that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was directed to be conducted on 05-09-2007 and thereafter as the Revenue Divisional Officer thought it fit to give another opportunity to the petitioner as well as others issued a notice on 30-11-2007 informing them to attend the personal hearing to be conducted on 15-12-2007 and accordingly the petitioner was present. Hence, the said contention of learned counsel for petitioner cannot be countenanced. 4. The other contention of Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner, is that there are so many Government lands like poramboke, gramakantams etc., but, however, the Land Acquisition Officer, without answering the same in a peculiar manner rejected the said contentions stating that no other suitable lands, as stated by the petitioner, are available for this purpose. Even this contention is also not acceptable. It is not the specific case of the petitioner that alternate Government lands are available at certain places in certain survey numbers. Had the petitioner given any particulars it can be understood that the Land Acquisition Officer also is expected to give the details. The objection with regard to the availability of lands, according to the petitioner is that other lands like poramboke, gramakantams etc., belong to the Government, in and around Sarpavaram village, are very much available and fit for construction of houses. When the said objection is so vague in my considered view, the Revenue Divisional Officer is justified in rejecting the claim without giving details. Viewed from any angle, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the Land Acquisition Officer held a detailed enquiry as provided for under Section 5-A of the Act and then only submitted a report, pursuant to which the Collector issued the proceedings dated 26-02-2008. Accordingly, I see no merits in this writ petition. 5. At this juncture, Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a protected tenant and his apprehension is that during the course of award enquiry he may not be heard. Even this apprehension is baseless for the simple reason that notice under Section 5- A of the Act itself is given to the petitioner, however, as such an apprehension is expressed, the Land Acquisition Officer is hereby directed to hear the petitioner during the course of award enquiry as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. ________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Dt.28-03-2008 GLV ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER Copy to: 1. The Secretary to the Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. 5. 2CCs to 6. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}