IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14545 of 2010 Between: B. Narsimhulu & others. … Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary (Land Acquisition Department) Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.V. Raghuveer Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14545 of 2010 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 04.06.2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has rejected the petitioners’ objections ﬁled under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). The petitioners are the owners of the lands admeasuring Ac.10.55 cents in Sy.No.162/A2 and Ac.4.45 cents in Sy.No.278/1 of Nadikhairawadi Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District. During October 2009, devastating ﬂoods occurred in the abovementioned village leaving scores of people homeless. In order to rehabilitate the ﬂood victims, the respondents have initiated land acquisition proceedings. Having felt the urgent need for such acquisition, enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was initially dispensed with. The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition Nos.59 and 695 of 2010, which were allowed to the extent of setting aside Section 6 declaration and directing the respondents to hold enquiry under Section 5A. Accordingly, Form-III notices were issued to the petitioners to which they have submitted their objections through registered post. The petitioners have not attended the personal hearing. On considering the written objections of the petitioners, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order, whereby he has rejected the said objections. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners ﬁeld the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioners, advanced the following submissions: 1) That the petitioners are having small extents of lands and that by the proposed acquisition, they will be deprived of their livelihood, 2) That there are other Government lands available, which could be utilized for providing house sites to the flood victims, and 3) That the lands, which are proposed for acquisition, situated in low laying area were also aﬀected by the ﬂoods and that therefore there was no point in acquiring such lands. As regards the ﬁrst submission of the learned counsel, in the counter aﬃdavit, the details of the total lands possessed by each of the petitioners are mentioned. On the strength of these details, it is averred that except petitioner Nos.8 to 10, who are in possession of an extents of Ac.1.70 cents, Ac.0.37 cents and Ac.1.81 cents respectively, all other petitioners have more than ﬁve acres of land. The respondents, however, sought to justify acquisition of the lands on the ground that as they are situated in the midst of the rest of the lands, their acquisition has become inevitable. The petitioners have not controverted these averments relating to the extents they possess. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the livelihood of the petitioners will be aﬀected by the proposed acquisition. As far as petitioner Nos.8 to 10 are concerned, as pleaded by the respondents, as their lands are situated in the midst of the other lands, their acquisition appears to be unavoidable. With respect to the second submission of the learned counsel, a perusal of the objections ﬁled by the petitioners does not show that any speciﬁc objection is raised in this regard. In the absence of any such objection having been raised, the petitioners are not entitled to raise such objections for the ﬁrst time in the Writ Petition. With regard to the third submission of the learned counsel, the suitability or otherwise of the lands fall in the realm of the decision of the authority concerned with the acquisition. The respondents would obviously have weighed the pros and cons of such acquisition and this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over such decision of the authorities on the suitability of lands. The proposed acquisition being with avowed object of rehabilitating ﬂood victims and in the absence of any serious procedural illegality or irregularity in the acquisition proceedings, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such proposals. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, interim order, dated 23.06.2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.18297 of 2010 is dismissed and WVMP.No.5500 of 2010 is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.12.2011 ES