IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.16235 of 2008, 713 & 1134 of 2009 W.P.No.16235 of 2008: Between: Smt. Guttikonda Padmaja ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Guntur & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B.V. Subbaiah, Senior counsel for Sri Gogineni Krupachand Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.16235 of 2008, 713 & 1134 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since these Writ Petitions involve common issues of law and facts, they are being heard and disposed of together. The petitioners are the owners of the lands in various survey numbers of Chinnaravouru Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. They have filed these Writ Petitions for a Mandamus to set aside notification Rc.No.4034/07-G2, dated 10.05.2008 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and published in daily newspaper on 18.06.2008 and the proceedings, whereby the objections of the petitioners were overruled. In pursuance of the notices received under Section 5A of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections, which were considered. Some other persons, whose lands are also acquired, have also submitted their objections. By order dated 31.12.2008, respondent No.1 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners while allowing the objections of some other persons. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petitions are filed. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is inter alia stated that initially an extent of Ac.60.00 was proposed for acquisition of land for providing house sites to the weaker sections and that on the representations made by some of the land owners, an extent of Ac.29.89 cents was notified for acquisition. It is further stated that a consent award was passed for Ac.12.42 cents and that in view of the interim orders granted in these cases; further proceedings in respect of the lands owned by the petitioners could not be taken up. At the hearing, Sri B.V. Subbaiah, learned senior counsel representing Sri Gogineni Krupachand for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents have indulged in discrimination. Inasmuch as though the petitioners and other objectors are similarly placed, the lands of the other objectors were deleted even before they were notified for acquisition. The learned counsel placed before the Court a map prepared and attested by the Tahsildar, Tenali Mandal, in order to show that on account of deletion of some of the lands, the contiguity of the lands is lost and that acquisition of the lands around the agricultural fields is totally not feasible. He further stated that all the petitioners are small farmers and are dependent upon the lands proposed for acquisition, which are double crop wet lands irrigated through Krishna water. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no justification to acquire the lands of the petitioners, which are double crop wet lands, for the purpose of providing house sites. As noted above, already a consent award for Ac.12.42 cents was passed. The total extent of the land owned by the petitioners comes to Ac.6.38 cents. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in the interests of justice, the petitioners are entitled to the same benefit as was given to some of the owners of the lands, which were initially proposed to be acquired, but subsequently deleted before the notification under Section 4(1) was issued. For the abovementioned reasons, the acquisition proceedings to the extent they relate to the extent of Ac.6.38 cents owned by the petitioners alone are quashed. The respondents are permitted to go ahead with the acquisition proceedings in respect of other lands notified under the impugned notification dated 10.05.2008. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions in the manner indicated above, all the interlocutory applications pending in these Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.04.2011 ES