HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO. 17271 OF 2006 DATED: 23.8.2006 Between: Rock View Enclave Grey Hounds Employees Mutually Aided Housing Society and others … Petitioners and Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented By its Secretary and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.17271 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.P. Rajagopal Rao, learned Special Counsel for the Outer Ring Road Project, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Petitioners lands are acquired for the formation of the Outer Ring Road and a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) has been published on 2.6.2005. Petitioners seek that the Government provide them alternative land for their lands acquired. This relief they seek in view of the discretion available to the State, under Section 31 (3) of the Act. Sub-section 3 of Section 31 of the Act inheres a discretion in the Collector, with the sanction of the appropriate Government, of either making an arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable, having regard to the interests of the parties concerned. This is an alternative to the award of monetary compensation for acquisition of the land. The power, authority and discretion to explore the alternative compensatory methods are statutorily conferred on the Collector, with the sanction of the appropriate Government. Since the power is within a spectrum of discretion, no Mandamus can issue that it should be exercised in a particular manner. Since acquisitions for the Outer Ring Road Project are many and involve huge extents of land, the Government is required to evolve a non discriminatory and transparent policy for dealing with all or specified classes of lands acquired, so as to avoid individualized and arbitrary decision. The Government should not approach the exploration of the alternative compensatory methods under Section 31 (3) of the Act on a case to case or face to face basis, but should adopt a neutral, transparent and non- discriminatory policy. However, no Mandamus can issue to direct that in lieu of the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, the petitioners must be granted alternative lands. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents, in particular the respondents 1 and 4, to consider the petitioners representation dated 30.6.2005 for grant of alternative land in lieu of the petitioners’ lands acquired, and dispose of the same in accordance with the spectrum of discretion available under Section 31 (3) of the Act, after evolving transparent and published guidelines/policy for the purpose. No order as to costs. ------------------------------- GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 23.8.2006 CVM