HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25477 of 2007 18.01.2008 Between: V.Mangamma and others … Petitioners AND The District Collector (L.A.), Vizianagaram and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25477 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notification, dated 23.10.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary and also to set aside consequential declaration, dated 23.07.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act. By the impugned notification, the following extents belonging to the petitioners are proposed to be acquired for public purpose, namely, rehabilitation of the displaced villagers of Kotikipenta Village under Peddagedda Reservoir project. Sy.No. extent 1. 45/1B Ac.1.50 cents 2. 45/2B Ac.1.82 cents 3. 49/1A Ac.2.00 cents 4. 51/1 Ac.0.60 cents 5. 52/1A Ac.5.45 cents 6. 53-2B Ac.2.40 cents The respondents also issued declaration, dated 23.07.2007 under Section 6 of the Act. The present writ petition is filed questioning the said notification and the declaration on the following grounds. 1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published in newspapers in the District 2. The substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was not published by tom-tom. 3. All the petitioners are small farmers and therefore, their lands cannot be acquired. 4. Notices under Section 5A of the Act were not served on the petitioners and no enquiry was conducted. Declaration under Section 6 was published in the Gazette on 23.07.2007 and the same was not published in two newspapers and in the locality. Respondent No.2 - Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Parvathipuram Division, Vizianagarm District filed counter affidavit, in which the above-mentioned assertions of the petitioners were denied. It is stated in the counter affidavit that publication of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made as under: Sl.No. Mode of Publication Date of publication of Draft Notification 1. Vizianagaram District Gazette 06.01.2007 2. Krishnapatrika (Telugu) 20.01.2007 3. Leader (English) 20.01.2007 4. Substance in the Locality 22.01.2007 Sl.No. Mode of Publication Date of publication of Draft Declaration 1. Vizianagaram District Gazette 23.07.2007 2. Suryaprabha (Telugu) 08.08.2007 3. Deccan Chronicle (English) 08.08.2007 4. Substance in the Locality 08.08.2007 It is further stated that notices, dated 08.01.2007 in Form-3 were served for holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act on 09.02.2007 on all the owners of the land and that all of them attended the enquiry and filed their objections. It is further averred that respondent No.2 enquired into the said objections and submitted a report to respondent No.1 on 09.03.2007 and respondent No.1 having considered the said report passed order, dated 14.04.2007 whereby he rejected the objections filed by the owners of the land. At the hearing, Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the pleas raised by the petitioners in their affidavit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader produced the record and I have perused the same. As noted above, the stand of the petitioners is that the respondents committed illegalities by not publishing notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the newspapers and in the locality. The said plea is not only contradicted by the respondents in the counter affidavit but they have also produced material in support of their assertion that publication of the notification and the declaration was made as required under the provisions of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that no enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been conducted, from a perusal of the record, I find this plea as not correct. The record reveals that on 09.02.2002, respondent No.2 recorded individual statements of as many as seven persons, who are present in the enquiry and some of the petitioners are included among those who made such statements. Therefore, the assertion of the petitioners that no enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been held is falsified by the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended with considerable vehemence that there are alternative Government lands available in the village and that the respondents are not justified in acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioners, who are small farmers. A perusal of the objections raised by the petitioners, which are recorded during the enquiry does not show that the petitioners raised this contention before the Land Acquisition Officer in the enquiry. As the petitioners raised this contention for the first time in the writ petition, without raising the said objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, who is competent to consider and decide it as a fact finding authority, I am not inclined to entertain this contention at this stage. Learned counsel next contended that since the petitioners are small farmers, their lands cannot be acquired. I am not inclined to accept this contention because the provisions of the Act do not place any embargo on the acquisition of the lands of the small farmers. However, the State has been issuing instructions, which are administrative in nature, to the effect that where there are alternative Government lands available, acquisition of lands of the small farmers shall be avoided. This shall necessarily mean that wherever there are no alternative lands available and if the State requires the lands of the small farmers for bona fide public purpose, acquisition of their lands cannot be avoided. While rejecting the objections of the petitioners, the District Collector in his order, dated 14.04.2007 mentioned as under: “It is to inform them that the acquisition of the lands in question is intended for provision of house sites to the displaced families of Kotikipenta village of Pachipenta Mandal, who lost most of their lands, shelter and everything on account of Peddagedda Reservoir Project, as such, immediate rehabilitation measures have to be taken up. Since the land proposed is for provision of house sites under R & R package to the entire Kotikipenta village, compact block of land has to be acquired as scattered bits of land will not serve the purpose. In view of the urgency and importance involved in it, there is no other go except to acquire these lands. Hence, it is decided to acquire these lands. The objections of the petitioners are rejected as there is no alternative available and this acquisition is intended for R & R package. The matter is decided accordingly.” Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that lands of the petitioners are sought to be acquired for an avowed public purpose namely, rehabilitation of displaced families of a village under a reservoir project. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that alternative lands are available, I do not see any illegality in acquiring the lands of the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.33209 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th JANUARY, 2008. kvni