THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11229 and 11230 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Almost as high tide in the sea, the Government has taken up the work of provision of house sites by construction of lakhs of houses. That resulted in indiscriminate choosing of lands, hardly having any time either to verify the genuinety of the so called beneficiaries or the desirability of the acquiring land. Obviously under the pressure, indiscriminate choosing of lands took place leaving all the norms observed for decades together, to winds. These writ petitions provide one such example. To fulfil the targets set for them the authorities of the Revenue Department have searched for lands for providing house sites in almost in every village. In that process, the District Collector, East Godavari, published a notification dated 25.11.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire the land to an extent of Acs.4.28 cents in survey Nos.207/2A and 207/2B situated at Sreerangapatnam Village, Korukonda Mandal, owned by the petitioners. The land is covered by coconut trees and fruit bearing trees of different kinds. In the course enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners raised various objections including the one that the land is a developed horticulture garden. The Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, who conducted enquiry repelled the objections by observing that compensation would be paid for the trees. This was approved by the District Collector, through impugned endorsement dated 03.04.2007. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. The respondents filed counter affidavits stating that various aspects were taken into account before the land of the petitioners was chosen and that there is no other land of the village for providing house sites. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It has been a practice that the lands covered by gardens of fruit bearing trees shall not be acquired except where it is inevitable. Time and again, the Government has been taking steps for protecting green coverage. Millions of rupees are spent for this purpose and in fact incentives are provided for those who propose to raise gardens of fruit bearing trees. The petitioners raised gardens in their land by planting more than hundred coconut trees and quite large number of fruit bearing trees, such as mango, sapota, cashew nut etc., In the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners raised various objections. One of them reads as under: “That the above land is not suitable for provision of House sites. The entire land is garden land consisting of coconut, mango, cashew nut, Jack Trees and other fruit bearing trees. There are nearly about 125 coconut trees in the said land, aged about 20 to 25 years, well grown up trees. Further the other fruit bearing trees like mango, sapota, tamarind and lemon trees are yielding well. This claimant is getting income from the said trees.” The remarks offered by the third respondent to the above objection read: “The objection raised regarding the suitability of land is not tenable. The land proposed for acquisition is high in level, adjacent to the village and quite suitable for construction of houses. It is true that the entire land is a garden consisting of Coconut, Cashew, Jack and other trees. As regards the trees, suitable compensation would be determined and paid as per existing norms at the time of passing Award. Appropriate Compensation for the land acquired would be arrived and paid duly following the procedure as contemplated under the L.A. Act.” This only shows the lopsided approach on the part of the respondents. In a way, they have acted just in the opposite direction to the policy laid down by the Government, in the name of implementing the scheme for providing house sites. It is on account of working of authorities in diffaerent departments for cross purposes that the situation is deteriorating day by day. The District Collector ought to have bestowed his attention on such important aspect instead of blindly putting the stamp of approval on such report of the third respondent. Remarks offered on other important aspects are in no way different. For the foregoing reasons, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Impugned endorsement dated 03.04.2007 is set aside, as a result notification 25.11.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Act shall also be quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 07th June, 2010 GHN