IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 4723 of 2008 Between: 1 Garaga Balayogi, S/o. Dharma Raju, R/o. Someshwaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Garaga Srikrishna Satya Prasad, S/o. Balayogi, R/o. Someshwaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Garaga Srikrishna, S/o. Balayogi, R/o. Someshwaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Garaga Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkata Rao, R/o. Someshwaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Garaga Venkata Rao, S/o. Dharma Raju, R/o. Someshwaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 Garaga Sushma Kavya, D/o. Venkateshwara Rao, R/o. Someshwaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 7 G. Laxmi Venakteshwari, W/o. Appa Rao Naidu, R/o. Someshwaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 8 Garaga mani Laxmi, D/o. Venkateshwara Rao, R/o. Someshwaram, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Rep.b y its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Notification Ref.No. G3/3973/07 dated 29-6-2007 proposing to acquire the land an extent of Ac. 4.96 1/2 cents of the Petitioners in Sy.Nos. 307/3, 308/1, 310/1 of Someshwaram Village, Rayavvaram Mandal, East Godavari District and the order of the 2nd respondent dated 13-02-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the land acquisition Act and set aside the same consequently directing the respondents to drop further proceedings including dispossession of the Petitioners from the said lands. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing a Notification dated 29.6.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) proposing to acquire the petitioners’ land of an extent of Ac.4.96 ½ cents in S.Nos.307/3, 308/1, 310/1 situated in Someshwaram village and the consequential order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners assert that the 2nd respondent issued a Notification dated 29.6.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire their land of an extent of Ac.04.96 ½ cents in S.Nos.307/3, 308/1, 310/1 situated in Someshwaram village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections. Then, the petitioners filed their objections before the 3rd respondent. According to the Notification, the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer is conferred with the powers to hold an enquiry into the objections. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that the 3rd respondent, without affording an opportunity of being heard, submitted remarks to the 2nd respondent-Collector, who, based on the remarks, passed the impugned order dated 13.2.2008 to the effect that the petitioners are not small farmers and they are not exempted from acquisition of their lands. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit sworn to by the 3rd respondent-RDO, it is decided as follows: “In the circumstances stated above, it is opined that the petitioners’ land is no more required for acquisition and it is proposed to exempt the petitioners’ land from acquisition”. In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it may not be necessary for this Court to go into various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition needs no consideration. Accordingly, the same is dismissed directing the respondents to de-notify the land in question under Section 48(1) of the Act at the earliest. No costs. ______________ 23.04.2008 Note: Furnish copy in three days B/o bcj