HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.24810 of 2006 ORDER: The proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 25.10.2005, and the notification issued by the District Collector dated 26.07.2005, is under challenge in this Writ Petition as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, 2 in number, claim to be the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.5.09 cts (wet) in Sy. No.193/1 to 193/11 of Nandimangalam village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District. They claim to have purchased the land by sale deeds dated 20.09.1990 and 24.07.1992 respectively; and to have obtained registration as a small scale industry from the Government of A.P. vide proceedings dated 25.09.2004. The notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published in Andhra Jyothi newspaper on 14.08.2005. Questioning the said notification, the petitioners filed W.P. No.19389 of 2005 and this Court, by order dated 12.09.2005, held as under: “It is no doubt true that the power under Section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has to be exercised for valid reasons. Informal or routine exercise of power dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act which gives a valuable right to the land owners to raise objections to land acquisition is per se improper exercise of jurisdiction. However, when the acquisition is for provision of house sites for weaker sections, there is always a presumption that there is urgency as held by this Court in Janapareddy Venkateswara Rao v. District Collector, Eluru[1]. Even if there is urgency for acquiring the private property, as per relevant Board Standing Orders, it is always necessary for the authorities to avoid acquiring private land when there is Government land available for reasons which are obvious. As there is serious dispute in this regard and petitioners are also willing to show some of the lands belonging to them, it would be in the interest of justice if first respondent considers the representation of the petitioners in this regard. Liberty is given to petitioners to make a representation within a period of one week from today, which shall be considered by the District Collector as well as the Land Acquisition Officer immediately.” The petitioners thereafter submitted an objection petition on 22.08.2005 which was considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in his proceedings dated 25.10.2005. The petitioners were informed that their objections were rejected, and that further action would be continued as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In their objection petition, the petitioners had objected to acquisition of their land for providing house sites to weaker sections, mainly on the ground that alternate Government land was available. Sri P. Venugopal, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, in so far as Government lands in Sy. No.6 of an extent of Ac.10.56 cts of Nandimangalam village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District is concerned, they were assigned to landless poor and, on the ground of violation of conditions of D.Form patta, action had already been initiated by the M.R.O. for resuming the land and, since the land is available for resumption, the Government should have waited for completion of resumption proceedings instead of seeking to acquire the petitioners’ land. The Land Acquisition Officer, in his proceedings dated 25.10.2005, observed that initiation of action for resumption may create legal complications; it may result in time being consumed for the litigation to be resolved, and proceedings under Act 9 of 1977 to be finalized. On the ground that the said lands could not be resumed immediately, and utilized for the purposes of providing house sites for weaker sections, the Land Acquisition Officer found these lands not useful. Sri P. Venugopal, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would further contend that the petitioners lands, which is the subject matter of acquisition, are agricultural lands and, as has been observed earlier by this Court in W.P. No.19389 of 2005, such agricultural lands ought not to be acquired, more so since other lands are available. In the objection petition filed by the petitioners they have stated that the lands, which are the subject matter of acquisition, have already been developed for establishment of a small scale industry. This fact having been noted in his proceedings dated 25.10.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer observes that no recorded evidence was produced, in support of establishment of the proposed small scale industry, by the land owners objectors. Sri P. Venugopal, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would further contend that, since more than six years have elapsed since the proceedings dated 25.10.2005 was passed, the Government lands in Sy. No.6 could well have been resumed, in which event it may not be necessary for the petitioners’ land to be acquired. What is under challenge in this Writ Petition is the validity of the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Merely because the petitioners’ objections were rejected does not mean that the respondents, even if alternate government lands are available for immediate allotment as house sites to weaker sections, should compulsorily proceed to acquire the petitioners’ land and not utilize available Government lands. This aspect is not a matter for examination in these proceedings as the subject matter of challenge is the validity of the order of the 1st respondent dated 25.10.2005. It is not for this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to substitute its opinion for that of the satisfaction of the Land Acquisition Officer. As long as the reasons, assigned for rejecting the objections, are not perverse this Court would refrain from interference. The proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 25.10.2005 does not suffer from perversity. The reasons given, for negativing the objections raised by the petitioners, cannot be said to be wholly unjustified. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the said order. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 24.02.2011 MRKR [1] (1999)3 ALD 42