THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.2755 & 4059 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: In the floods that have occurred in the down stream of Tungabhadra river in the year 2009, almost the entire villages of Rajolibanda, Maddur, etc., were washed way. The Government initiated steps for rehabilitation of the affected persons. As regards the village of Maddur, it was proposed to shift to a safer place. Initially, an extent of Ac.14.32 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.10, 13/A, 13/B and 13/C was proposed for acquisition, and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 19-12- 2009. That was questioned by the owners of the land by filing writ petition Nos.8197 and 8349 of 2010, on several grounds. This Court granted interim orders on 15-04-2010. Obviously, by taking note of the objections raised by the owners of the land and to hasten the rehabilitation programme, the Government issued another notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 22-12-2010, proposing to acquire Ac.19.27 guntas of land in various sub-divisions of Sy.Nos.3, 7 and 8 of Maddur village. The petitioner in W.P.No.2755 of 2011 is the Grampanchayat of Maddur village, represented by its Sarpanch, and petitioner in W.P.No.4059 of 2011 is a Committee of Displaced People in Sunkesula Dam. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the notification dated 22-12-2010. According to them, the land proposed to be acquired is not at all suitable for rehabilitation of the displaced persons. It is represented that the impugned notification was issued by yielding to the pressure exerted by the owners of the lands, that were earlier proposed to be acquired. Other grounds are also urged. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed, opposing the writ petitions. Heard Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. More than one year has elapsed, since flash floods have washed away the entire Maddur village. To avoid occurrence of such instances, the Government intended to shift the village to another place, and allotted house sites to the needy persons. It is no doubt true that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published, proposing to acquire the lands in Sy.Nos.10 and 13, etc., of Maddur Village. The owners of the land, however, have approached this Court by filing writ petitions. Those writ petitions were dismissed, as infructuous, on the ground that another notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued for the same purpose. It may appear some-what odd that even while the proceedings initiated through a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are pending, another notification was issued. However, there are certain factors, which justify such an exercise. The first is that the programme undertaken by the Government, namely, rehabilitation of the village does not brook any further delay. Almost the entire village was residing in a temporary accommodation for the past one year. Secondly, the owners of the land in sub-divisions of Sy.Nos.3, 7 and 8 have expressed their willingness to part with their lands, if acquired. Thereby, the delay on account of litigation is totally obviated. The record discloses that the place, which is now proposed to be acquired, was inspected by the Engineers of Housing Corporation and Revenue Officials, and they expressed the view that the land is better suited. No individual beneficiaries have expressed any reservations about the suitability of the land. The District Collector himself appears to have visited the place and ascertained the views. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the issue, relating to the suitability of the land for rehabilitation of the displaced persons. In case any individual beneficiary does not wish to accept the plot allotted to him, such cases can be dealt with separately, by the competent authorities. Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving it open to the individual beneficiaries, that are allotted sites, either to accept the allotment or to express their reservation about their suitability, which, in turn, shall be taken into account by the concerned authorities. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-03-2011. KO