IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11337 of 2007 Between: Janyavula Venkata Subbarao, S/o.late Venkateswararao, R/o.56/12/1, Opp: Surya Nursing Home, Patamata, Vijayawada – 10, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna 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 will be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the Notification published in Telugu Daily news paper Andhra Prabha dated 23.5.2007 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as the land of an extent of Ac.1.70 cents in R.S.No.78/2 Part of Yenamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and consequently set aside the said notification of the 1st respondent and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.L.NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.70 cents in Rs.No.78/2 Part of Yenamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of providing house sites under Indiramma Scheme as arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the land in question being agricultural land, the same cannot be acquired for non-agricultural purposes, i.e., for providing house sites, since there is a prohibition under Section 3 of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has brought to my notice that the above contention raised by the petitioners has not been accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22809 of 2006 and batch, dated 1.10.2007. Following the above decision, a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18881 of 2006 and batch, dated 28.12.2007 held as under. “In the impugned notifications, the State, through its functionaries, has proposed to acquire the agricultural lands for being put to non-agricultural purposes. Section 3 of the 2006 Act only prohibits use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes without permission from the competent authority and it does not prohibit acquisition of agricultural land for future use for non-agricultural purposes. Thus, the conditional prohibition contained in Section 3 would only apply at the stage when a person, who acquired agricultural land, seeks to put the same to non- agricultural use. There is, thus, no prohibition, whatsoever, on an individual or the State to acquire agricultural land with a view to use it for non- agricultural purposes in future. Once the state acquires the land under the provisions of the Act, it becomes the owner and it is exempted from the application of the provisions of the 2006 Act by virtue of Section 7(a) of the said Act. In view of such an exemption, the restrictions, if any, placed by the provisions of the 2006 Act on the use of agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose will have no application to the lands so acquired by the State. From the above it is clear that the impugned acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non-agricultural purposes. Following the above decision, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ (G. Rohini, J.) 27th June, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 4 2 CCs to G.P. for Land Acquisition, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.(OUT) 5 2 CD copies.