HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.17902 of 2009 Date: January 27, 2010 Between: Chillimunta Devi, W/o. late Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ: housewife, R/o. Devepudi Village, Mudhinepalli Mandal, Krishna District … Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, and another … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring her land, to an extent of Ac.1.28 cents covered by R.S.No.49/1G at Devapudi village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. Devapudi Village in Krishna District is declared by the Government of Andhra Pradesh as a model village under ‘Indiramma Programme’, a scheme notified to get houses constructed to weaker sections of the society. On verification made by the respondents, 36 poor families are found without houses or house-sites and are in dire need of them. For the purpose of constructing a housing colony to the needy persons, respondents have identified an extent of Ac.1.28 cents of land in R.S.No.49/1/G, belonging to the petitioner, which is stated to be adjacent to the village. Notification to that effect was published in the Gazette on 08-12-2008 and also in the daily newspapers. In the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an objection was raised by the petitioner stating that she is a widow and a small farmer, having two sons, and requested to exclude the said portion of her land from acquisition. In the findings recorded under Section 5A(2) of the Act, the competent authority, i.e. the first respondent-District Collector, Krishna, while admitting that the land in question was gifted to the petitioner, opined that the proposed acquisition is for Ac.1.28 cents and even after acquisition, the petitioner will remain with Ac.2.88 cents of land and therefore she is well-off and her livelihood will not be affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no basis for the findings recorded in the enquiry to the effect that petitioner is having sufficient land to maintain her family, after acquiring the portion of land that is notified for acquisition. It is submitted that there are other alternative lands, which are suitable for acquisition, but, without notifying the same, the land of the petitioner is notified for acquisition. The second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Gudivada Division, Krishna District, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, generally, denying various allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the land in question is notified for the purpose of providing houses to 36 poor families who were identified to be not having any house or house-sites. It is stated that land to an extent of Ac.1.28 cents covered by R.S.No.49/1G at Devapudi village, Mudinepalli Mandal, which is subject matter of acquisition, is adjoining the said village and suitable for acquisition and there is no other vacant Government or Poramboke land to accommodate the beneficiaries under the scheme. While it is true that the petitioner, who will be left with Ac.2.88 cents, after the proposed acquisition of Ac.1.28 cents of land, cannot be said to be ‘well-off’, but, at the same time, there is no embargo under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even for acquiring lands of small farmers for public purpose. So far as the lands of small farmers are concerned, generally, they are to be excluded from acquisition, but, in the present case, it is stated that the piece of land of the petitioner, to the extent of Ac.1.28 cents, is the only suitable land adjoining the village, and no other land is available. Hence, on the ground that the petitioner is a small farmer, the subject land cannot be excluded from acquisition, which is intended for providing houses to homeless people. In view of the findings recorded, on the objections of the petitioner and also the averments made in the counter affidavit, I do not find any illegality in the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Needless to state that the interim order granted earlier stands vacated. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J January 27, 2010 MRR