THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18024 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of Ac.0.68 cents of land in Survey No.28/1 of Chirovolu Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. Respondent No.1 issued notification, dated 01.12.2008, proposing to acquire the said land for the purpose of providing house sites. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was held. The petitioner raised an objection to the effect that he is a small farmer and that there are other lands available for acquisition. Through his order, dated 08.07.2009, respondent No.1 rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. This was followed by other proceedings. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the land. He contends that he purchased the land in the recent past with a view to carry on agriculture and the observation made by the respondents that he owns about Acs.4.02 cents of land in other place is incorrect. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is urged that the land of the petitioner was chosen after thorough verification and enquiry and that no other suitable lands are available for acquisition. The particulars of the land held by the petitioner in other survey numbers are also furnished. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The principal ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that he is a small farmer and according to the policy laid down by the Government, the lands of small farmers shall not be acquired for providing house sites. It is no doubt true that the Government issued memos to the effect that as far as possible, the lands of the small farmers shall not be acquired. There is no absolute prohibition as regards such lands. Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioner that he is a small farmer is proved to be incorrect. Respondent No.1 has not only observed in his proceedings, dated 08.07.2009 that the petitioner owned an extent of Acs.4.02 cents of land in addition to what is proposed to be acquired, but also furnished the pahanies in relation to the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a small farmer. Neither any mala fides are attributed nor any grounds, which would vitiate the proceedings, are urged. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 29.04.2010. kdl