THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 5687 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the notification dated 26.08.2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), issued by the 1st respondent-District Collector, Srikakulam, proposing to acquire land of the petitioner in an extent of 0.75 cents in Sy. No. 3/8 of Bannuvada Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District, along with other lands, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. Petitioner states that out of 0.75 cents of land, notified in the impugned notification for acquisition, he is the owner of 0.50 cents of land only, that the land in his possession is wet land, fed by Vamsadhara Channel, and it is not dry, as indicted in the impugned notification. He further contends that the land in question is not suitable for house sites because there is no approach road and that the land admeasuring 0.44 cents to the southern side of his land including an extent of Acs. 1½ cents, which belongs to V. Sankara Rao and another and which is sought to be acquired, is subject matter of civil dispute in the suit filed by them against the respondents. He states that earlier in the year 2000, the respondents issued notification for acquisition of dry land, but at the instance of some rich landlords, the revenue authorities dropped the acquisition proceedings. Petitioner states that he is a small farmer and that except this land, he has no other land for his livelihood, and as such, he contends that the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned acquisition notification, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition supported the impugned acquisition by reiterating the averments made by the respondents in the counter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. The contention of the petitioner that the revenue authorities have dropped the notification issued by the respondents in the year 2000 at the instance of rich influential persons is denied by the respondents, and it is the specific case of the respondents, as is evident from the counter filed by them, that earlier other lands in the village were proposed for acquisition in the year 2000 for providing house sites to 75 beneficiaries, but since during the course of enquiry, it was found that most of those beneficiaries were having own houses, and only 11 of them, who were not having houses were eligible for grant of house sites, the government felt that large extent of land was not necessary for providing house sites to the said 11 beneficiaries and accordingly dropped the acquisition proceedings, and provided house sites to the said 11 beneficiaries, in the small extent of government poramboke land available in Sy.No.17/1P of the village. While the matters stood thus, it is stated in the counter that in the year 2006, the Government has launched “Indiramma Programme” and in the First Phase, identified 30 poor beneficiaries, for grant of house sites. With a view to provide house sites to the said 30 beneficiaries, the government conducted inspection and after examining the feasibility of the lands in the village, found that the land sought to be acquired, was suitable for construction of houses. As is evident from the counter and the record produced by the respondents, the respondents issued the impugned draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, for acquisition of the land in question, for the purpose of providing house sites to those 30 beneficiaries, under Indiramma Programme. After issuance of the draft notification, the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was submitted to the District Collector, for approval, and after obtaining his approval, published the same in the District Gazette, and substance of the same in two local daily newspapers, as required under the Act. The mode and dates on which the notification and declaration were published are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the counter. It is further stated that though wide publicity has been given in the village as regards the proposed acquisition, the petitioner has not raised objections thereto. That in view of urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been dispensed with, by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. Thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Tekkali, issued notices under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act, on 09.11.2006, requiring the claimants to attend the award enquiry. Thereupon, the petitioner attended the award enquiry and submitted that only 0.50 cents of land in Sy.No.3/8A is in his possession and the remaining extent of 0.44 cents is in the possession and enjoyment of his brother’s son V. Sankara Rao and others, who already filed civil suit. Thereafter, draft award was passed, fixing the compensation of Rs. 45,150/- for the said land under acquisition, and after the same was approved by the Joint Collector, Srikakulam, vide proceedings dated 12.05.2007, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed award on 20.05.2007, and issued notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act to the petitioner to receive the compensation. But, the petitioner refused to receive the said notice. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Tekkali, has taken physical possession of the lands on 16.10.2007 and then layout was formed and sites were also handed over to the beneficiaries. The record produced by the respondents clearly discloses that the petitioner participated in the award enquiry and submitted his objections, and thereafter award was passed. Thus, it is clear that the respondents with respect to the impugned acquisition, have followed the procedure prescribed under the Act, in relation to the acquisition and also passed award, awarding an amount of Rs. 45,150/-, but the petitioner, in spite of being issued notice by the respondents, have refused to receive the award amount. So far as the allegation that there is no approach road to the land proposed for acquisition and hence the land on the southern side of the land of the petitioner admeasuring 0.44 cents is acquired, which includes 1 ½ cents of land belonging to V. Sankara Rao and another, is concerned, the respondents denied the same and it is submitted that there is a 12 ft. road at a distance of 100 meters from Tekkali- Bannuvada Main road, which is quite sufficient to reach the land proposed for acquisition from the main road. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he is a small farmer, is concerned, the same is denied by the respondents, and it is contended that he owns land in an extent of Ac.7.00 apart from the land proposed for acquisition, which fact, the petitioner did not deny by filing any reply-affidavit. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he is a small farmer, and except the land in question, there is no other land available for cultivation for his livelihood, cannot be accepted. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 7th October, 2010 IBL