IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2727 of 2008 Between: 1 Syed Zelani S/o.Syed Moosa R/o.Dr.No.82-4-10, Lalacharuvu, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. 2 Syed Babu S/o.Syed Moosa R/o.Dr.No.82-4-10, Lalacharuvu, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer cum R.D.O. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District. 4 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Prl. SEcretary, REvenue (Land Acquisition), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent Ref. G3/7095/2007 dt. 11.1.2008 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners in the 5A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act without affording an opportunity of personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside order of the 1st respondent in Ref. G3/7095/2007, dt. 11.1.2008 declaring it as without power and jurisdiction in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2727 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Order dated 11.01.2008 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the objections of the petitioners to the proposed acquisition of their lands, were rejected. By notification dated 07.11.007, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), an extent of Ac.4.13 cents of land, comprised in Sy.No.242/3 and 242/4 of Kalavacherla village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections. In response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A, the petitioners submitted their objections. The said objections were claimed to have been enquired into on 14.12.2007 and 17.12.2007 and rejected by order, dated 11.01.2008, passed by respondent No.1, which is impugned in this writ petition. At the hearing, Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of personal hearing. I have gone through the averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, and perused the record produced by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In paragraph-5 of the affidavit, the petitioners mentioned as under: “I submit that in the 5A enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioners on 14-12-2007, on which date the objections were taken up for consideration by the 2nd respondent. I submit that it is mandatory under the provisions of the Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act to afford personal hearing to the objectors before taking any decision. I submit that the action of the 2nd respondent in not giving personal hearing is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.” The record produced by the learned Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition shows that on 14.12.2007 the petitioners were present and on the said day, the enquiry was adjourned to 17.12.2007. Both the parties and their advocate signed on 14.12.2007, taking note of the fact that the enquiry was adjourned to 17.12.2007. The record shows that someone, without any signature, wrote in vernacular language as “enquiry held on 17.12.2007 was attended”. There are no signatures of any person under this endorsement. In the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned by respondent No.1 that enquiry was conducted on 14.12.2007 and 17.12.2007. The petitioners failed to plead that on 14.12.2007 the enquiry was adjourned to 17.12.2007 and that on the later date no enquiry was held. Learned counsel for the petitioners perused the relevant page of the file on which enquiry was adjourned from 14.12.2007 to 17.12.2007 under the signatures of the parties and their advocate. If the petitioners ‘case is that on 17.12.2007 to which date the enquiry was adjourned, respondents No.2 did not hold enquiry, they would have specifically mentioned the said fact in their affidavit. But they did not do so. This factor, coupled with the specific observation contained in the impugned order, that enquiry was held on 14.12.2007 and 17.12.2007, convince me to hold that respondent No.2 held enquiry and gave the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the objections of the petitioners regarding availability of alternative lands have not been properly considered. Respondent No.1 in the impugned order extracted the objection of the petitioners and the remarks of respondent No.2, and it is apt to reproduce them hereunder: OBJECTION T h e petitioner contend that there are other suitable lands measuring Ac.2.50 cts. Which is known as Pathamalapalli now under the control o f Grampanchayat, an extent of Ac.2.86 cts. Covered by S.No.243 and an extent of Ac.3.85 cts. Covered by S.No.245 which is burial ground are available in the village for distribution of house sites. REMARKS That the Pathamalapalli village site is being used by the villagers as burial ground and there are many tombs in the said land, that the land in S.No.245 measuring Ac.3.85 cts. Is classified in village Accounts as burial ground and it cannot be used for providing house sites, as the villagers are using this land as burial ground. Further, the land in S.No.243 measuring Ac.2.86 cts. Was selected earlier for house sites as it is classified as G.P.village site (Adi Andhra Mala Palli) in which the caste people lived previously and they left the site at present. The present beneficiaries hesitate to occupy the land whenever they provided with as part of the land is covered with tombs and graveyard of the caste people previously resided there. Hence the petitioner’s land is proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to weaker sections. The above reproduced part of order clearly shows that the objections raised by the petitioners regarding the availability of alternative lands have been carefully and properly considered and valid reasons are assigned to reject the same. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 being confined to examination of decision making process and not the merits of the decision, I am of the view that the respondents have not committed any illegality in the process of conducting enquiry under Sec.5-A or in the order passed disposing of the objections of the petitioners. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3515 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 26.02.2008 Dsr