THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2084 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are owners of Acs.6.10 cents in Survey No.99/2A of Uttarakanchi Village, Pratipadu Mandal, East Godavari District. The said land was notified by the first respondent by publishing a notice dated 15.06.2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {“the Act” for brevity}, for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor. By exercising powers under Section 17 (4) of the Act, the first respondent directed that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to be dispensed with. However, various representations were made by the petitioners and other affected persons. The first respondent passed a detailed order on 21.01.2007. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 12.07.2006. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings. It is urged on their behalf that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is impermissible. It is also stated that the land is sought to be acquired to provide house sites to the residents of another village and that the lands are partly covered by coconut and banana gardens and on the rest of it, paddy is being cultivated by digging a bore well. Respondents filed counter opposing the Writ Petition. It is stated that though house sites are to be provided to persons of a different village, the lands proposed to be acquired are in the immediate neighbourhood of the village. The respondents submitted that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held and adequate opportunity was given to the petitioners. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is not uncommon that the Government acquires the land by taking recourse to the Act, to provide house sites to the weaker sections of a village. Invariably, the village is taken as a unit and it is only the lands within a particular village, that are acquired to provide house sites to the needy poor of that very village. It is just unthinkable that the lands of persons of a particular village are acquired to provide house sites for the persons of different village. Even assuming that the proposed lands are nearer to the other village, such a course cannot be permitted. The second respondent directed that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be dispensed with. Having done so, he proceeded to conduct enquiry and consider the objections. The petitioners cannot have any genuine grievance on account of the clause contained in the notification, which direct that Section 5-A does not apply. The reason is that full-fledged enquiry is conducted. The first respondent passed a detailed order dated 21.01.2007 dealing with objections raised by the petitioner. An important objection was that half of the land is covered with banana and coconut garden and in the rest of the land paddy is being cultivated. These facts were not even disputed. It is the consistent policy of the Government not to acquire the gardens and topes for the purpose of providing house sites. In these days of declining green coverage, it is not at all advisable to acquire an existing garden and provide house sites. There is another flaw in the proceedings. The extent mentioned in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as in the notice under Section 5-A of the Act is Acs.6.10 cents, whereas in the declaration under 6 of the Act, the extent is mentioned as Acs.6.60 cents. The first respondent has the power to vary the extent, but he is under obligation to furnish reasons therefor. The counter affidavit is silent on this aspect. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 29th April 2010 RRB