IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24863 of 2006 Between: Valluri Venkata Swamy S/o.Sooranna R/o.Mernipadu, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., rep. by District Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada. 2 Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada. 3 Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, E.G.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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, striking down the proceedings of the Joint Collector Ref.No.g3/2044/2006 dated .10.2006/ 2.11.2006 as arbitrary, capricious and illegal and without conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 5A of Land Acquisition Act and since is also against the directions of the Government in land acquisition for the purpose of house site for Indiramma Pathakam as issued by Circular Memo No.10054/LA- 1/2005 dated 22.4.06 and therefore liable to be strucked-down as such and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SIVANANDA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 24863 of 2006 27-02-2009 Oral Order: The writ petition is filed targeting the order dated 02-11- 2006 of the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioner’s objections to the acquisition of land of an extent of Ac 0-08 cents in R.S.No. 22/2 of Mernipadu village of Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. The land of the petitioner was identified by the State as suitable for providing house sites to weaker sections of the village. Initially invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dispensing with the salutary process of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, a draft notification under Section 4 of the Act and a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were issued in May, 2006. Assailing the draft notification and the declaration, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 11157 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court on 12-06-2006 quashing the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act published in the gazetee on 23-05-2006 and directing conduct of an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. After the disposal of the writ petition, the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry on 22-06-2006 issued a notice to the petitioner intimating an enquiry on 24-07-2006, opportunity of personal hearing on the said date and soliciting objections to the process of acquisition by 22-07-2006. The petitioner lodged his objections on 11-07-2006 and thereafter failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing scheduled on 24-07- 2006. The 2nd respondent in the circumstances passed the order under Section 5-A of the Act impugned herein rejecting the petitioner’s objections and affirming the decision to acquire the petitioner’s land. The petitioner assails the order of the 2nd respondent on several grounds stating that the petitioner was dispossessed in post haste and without due and rational consideration of his objections. Some of the objections of the petitioner may be illustratively considered. According to the petitioner his land proposed for acquisition is not fit for allotment of house sites since it is far away from the village. This objection is dealt with by the 2nd respondent by stating that the proposed land is situated within the radius of half a kilometer from the main residential area of the village. Another objection is that a major portion of the land is virtually a pond where the petitioner had been raising fish for his sustenance. The 2nd respondent declined to countenance this objection by stating that only a portion of the land in survey No. 22/2 of a total extent of Ac.1.66 cents i.e., an extent of Ac.0-80 cents is proposed for acquisition and it is only the remaining portion that has a pond. Other objections of the petitioner, that the land is very expensive; that huge amounts to be spent to fill up the land; that on an earlier occasion other members of his family were deprived of land of an extent of Ac.0-06 cents; that there is other suitable Government land in the proximity, were all rejected on a rational consideration of the objections and on a finding that there was no suitable alternative land belonging to the Government which was free from litigation and that the value of the land to be acquired would be determined in accordance with due process of law. On a careful consideration of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, this Court is satisfied that the 2nd respondent has duly applied its mind to the objections and with a due balance of the competing interests viz., the interest of the petitioner in his land and the paramount interest of the State in providing house sites to the weaker sections and by acquiring land in exercise of the power of eminent domain. This Court discerns no perversity or transgression of any statutory provisions warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits. The interim stay granted on 03-01-2007 in W.P.M.P.No. 31805 of 2006 in the writ petition stands dissolved forthwith. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 27-02-2009 Pvks