THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.18331 OF 2006 Date:01.04.2011 Between: Madipalli Naga Venkata Amarnath .. Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.18331 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of lands in Survey Nos.311/2, 377/1 and 377/2 totally admeasuring Acs.2.39 cents in Lakshminarayanapuram Village of Attili Mandal, West Godavari District. The first respondent proposed to acquire land for providing house sites to the weaker section people of the village. A notification dated 30.06.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) was published in the District Gazette No.220. The same was also published in a daily newspaper, “Helapuri News Daily”, on 04.07.2006. The petitioner sent a representation dated 13.07.2006, raising objections. He raised three pleas viz., that he is a small farmer; that there are no beneficiaries available in the village for allotment of house sites; and that there is Government land available for allotment to the poor people. The second respondent issued notice in Form No.3 under Section 5A of the Act for conducting enquiry. The enquiry was scheduled on 07.08.2006. After receiving notice, dated 29.07.2006, the petitioner sent a requisition on 05.08.2006 for adjournment of the enquiry till 18.08.2006 to enable him to submit his statement either personally or in writing. This was sent by facsimile as well as by courier on 05.08.2006. As he sought time, he did not attend the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. But on 18.08.2006, he duly submitted objections to the acquisition raising the same pleas mentioned supra. The same was received by the second respondent on 22.08.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner received an endorsement dated 07.08.2006 from the second respondent informing that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and, therefore, it is construed that he has no objection for acquisition. In this background, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition assailing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as the endorsement dated 07.08.2006 issued by the second respondent. The counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s land is proposed to be acquired for providing permanent houses under Integrated Novel Development in Rural Areas and Modal Municipal Areas (INDIRAMMA) Programme. It is further stated that there is no Government proamboke land in the village, that the enquiry is conducted under Section 5A of the Act, that the petitioner is a non-resident and non-cultivating landlord owning more than Acs.7.00 of land in Unikili and Vendra Agraharam Villages and that he does not fall within the definition of small farmer. The counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the endorsement of the second respondent, the petitioner did not appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer during the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. But in the counter affidavit, it is stated differently which itself would belie the contention of the respondents that the enquiry was conducted. This contention is refuted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition). This Court finds force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The impugned endorsement dated 07.08.2008 reads as under. Revenue Divisional Officer, Roc.B.893/06 Kovvuru,dated 07.08.2006. Present: Sri D.Venkata Reddy, M.Sc., Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvuru. --- ENDORSEMENT I am to inform you that you have not attended to the 5A Enquiry conducted on 07.08.2006 in connection with the Acquisition of land measuring an extent of Ac.1.70 ctc., Ac.0.59 cts., and Ac.0.10 cts., in R.S.Nos.311/2, 377/1 & 2 of L.N.Puram Village of Attili Mandal respectively. Neither you have attended the 5-A enquiry nor filed any objection petition. It is construed that you have no objection to acquire the land to provide house sites to the weaker section people of L.N.Puram Village of Attili Mandal under Indiramma Programme. Sd/- D.Venkata Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvuru. In paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit, inter alia, it is stated as under. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, has issued a Notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act on 29.07.2006 asking him to attend 5-A enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer and submit objections, if any. The petitioner did not attend the 5-A enquiry conducted on 07.08.2006. The petitioner made a representation earlier before issuing 5-A Notice to the Land Acquisition Officer stating that he has no other land except the land proposed for acquisition. Since the petitioner has failed to attend the 5-A enquiry on the said date; the Land Acquisition Officer has issued an endorsement on the same day stating that he has no objection to acquire the land for providing house sites to the weaker sections. However, his representation dated 13.07.2006 submitted earlier before the Land Acquisition Officer was also enquired into and it is found that he is having the following lands: 1) Unikili Village, Attili Mandal Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.178/6 2) Vendra Agraharam, Palakoderu Mandal Ac.6.17 cents in Sy.No.2 Ac.0.64 cents in Sy.No.11/2A Thus, he is having a total extent of Ac.7.81 cents apart from acquisition. Therefore, the petitioner will not come under the definition of small or marginal farmer. He is having Automobile shop in Bhimavaram. Further, the petitioner is a wealthy person. A reading of the impugned endorsement and paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit would show that the second respondent failed to treat the whole matter in an objective manner. When a communication was sent to the petitioner, the second respondent proceeded on the premise that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry on 07.08.2006 in connection with the acquisition of land at Lakshminarayanapuram Village and that the petitioner did not file objections and, therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer construed that the petitioner has no objection for acquisition of the land. Whereas in the counter affidavit altogether a different stand is taken stating that the petitioner made a representation which was duly considered. The inconsistent stand taken by the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, certainly supports the contention that fair treatment was not meted out to the petitioner. On this limited ground, this Court is inclined to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement is set aside. The second respondent is directed to issue fresh notice in Form No.3 and conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Act before sending a report to the District Collector as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act. It is, however, open to the petitioner to raise all objections during the course of enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 01.04.2011 KH