THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.10353 of 2007 Dated: 01.06.2010 Between: K.Ranga Swamy. .. Petitioner. and The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittor and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondents in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.0.57 cents, Ac.0.43 cents, 0.41 cents, 0.23 cents, 0.19 cents and 0.11 cents in S.Nos.102/1, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2 and 104/4 respectively situated in C.Mallavaram village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, for the purpose of providing the said lands as house sites to the beneficiaries under Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, without issuing notice to him or acquiring the same under Land Acquisition Act. While admitting the writ petition on 16.05.2007, this Court granted interim direction not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject lands, however the State was granted liberty to acquire the lands in question for public purpose as per law. Seeking to vacate the interim order dated 16.05.2007, a vacate petition being WVMP.No.2450 of 2007 supported by counter-affidavit is filed. In the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (‘for short ‘L.A. Act’) was issued on 28.04.2007 proposing to acquire the subject lands along with other lands for providing house sites to the beneficiaries identified under Indiramma Programme, and the said notification was published in the locality on 07.06.2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent. The assertion of the petitioner is that without following due process of law, the respondents are interfering with his possession in respect of the subject lands, but the respondents have taken a specific stand in the counter affidavit that notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act has been issued on 28.04.2007, proposing to acquire the subject lands along with other lands for providing house sites to the beneficiaries identified under Indiramma Programme. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the impugned action of the respondents in acquiring the subject lands. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the notification dated 28.04.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, in accordance with law, if so advised. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 01.06.2010 v v