IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.62 of 2008 Between: Smt.Parise Hema Venkata Guna Vajram, w/o Veera Venkateswara Rao, R/o D.No.1/4, Ramaraju Palem (V), Guduru (M), Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The Tahsildar, guduru (M), at Guduru, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the notification issued by the 1st respondent in RC.G4/5551/07 dt.21-11-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.62 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is originally filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the Notification dated 21.11.2007, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 12.01.2008, by which the petitioner’s objections to the acquisition of her land were rejected. The petitioner, therefore, filed WPMP.No.4234 of 2008, seeking amendment of prayer of the writ petition. The said application was allowed on 22.02.2008. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by respondent No.1 is vague and cryptic. He pointed out that though in her objections the petitioner raised the plea that because of matrimonial disputes between her and her husband, her husband is living separately with her concubine and that except the land, which is proposed to be acquired, there is no other land owned by the petitioner, the same has not been considered. He also submitted that the other substantive objection, namely, that extents of Ac.10.48 cents and Ac.3.84 cents in RS Nos.168 and 169 respectively and belonging to PWD are available and that the same can be used for house sites without acquiring the land of the petitioner, has also not been considered. I have perused the order dated 12.01.2008 passed by respondent No.1. It is stated therein that the Tahsildar, Guduru vide his report submitted that the petitioner and her family are having Ac.3.92 cents in Ramarajupalem village, Ac.2.79 cents in Akumarru village, Ac.8.00 in S.N.Gollapalem village and Ac.4.60 cents in Mallavolu village and that she is a big landlord. Respondent No.1 has not considered the claim of the petitioner that due to matrimonial disputes, she is living separately from her husband. He also failed to consider the specific plea raised by the petitioner that alternative lands belonging to PWD are available. It hardly needs any emphasis that respondent No.1 who is charged with the statutory obligation of considering the objections of the land owners shall pass a reasoned order, after considering the objections objectively. If alternative lands belonging to State or any of its departments are available, and if they are found suitable, there is no reason whatsoever for the State or its officers to embark upon acquiring the private lands at the State exchequer and denying the property to the citizens. The manner in which the order has been passed by respondent No.1 is wholly unsatisfactory, to say the least. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, respondent No.1 is directed to re-consider the objections filed by the petitioner, by passing an order with detailed reasons. Respondent No.1 shall communicate the order to the petitioner before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 26.02.2008 Dsr