HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13124 of 2008 Between : Smt. Alampally Venkayamma. …….Petitioner And The District Collector, East Godavari District & another. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13124 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the validity of the order, dated 18.05.2008, passed by the 1st respondent District Collector, in Proceedings No.G3/759/2008, in exercise of powers under Section 5- A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.4.00 cents, covered by Survey No.445/3A2, situated at Kadiyapulanka village in Kadiyam Mandal of East Godavari District. The aforesaid land was notified for acquisition, and notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 19th of February 2008. In the aforesaid notification, there was a direction to conduct inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued notice in reference No.A/IND/1969/2007, dated 25.02.2008, as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act, for which, the petitioner has filed his objections through an Advocate. In view of the objections raised by the petitioner, a report was sent by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, and based on the same, the impugned order, dated 18.05.2008, is passed in G3/759/2008, by recording a finding that there are no valid grounds in the objections raised by the petitioner, and as such, rejected such objections. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer/RDO, Rajahmundry, was directed to submit proposals under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, for approval. Questioning the said order passed under Section 5-A of the Act, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents. 4. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.R.S. Srinivas, that the objections raised by the petitioner were not considered by the respondents in proper perspective. It is submitted by him that on earlier occasion, when the land belonging to the petitioner was notified for acquisition, he has challenged the same in Writ Petition No.7472 of 1983, and subsequently, when the plea was raised by the petitioner that he was a small farmer, the said notification was withdrawn. It is further submitted that as much as the petitioner continue to be a small farmer, there is no valid reason to acquire his land. It is further pleaded that the land belonging to the petitioner, which is notified for acquisition, is not fit for house sites and though other alternative Government land is available for acquisition, ignoring the same, the land of the petitioner was chosen for acquisition, and if the same is allowed to be acquired, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injury. 5. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent RDO/Land Acquisition Officer. In the counter affidavit, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that Kadiyapulanka village was declared as ‘Adarsha village’ under ‘Indiramma Program’, and as it was found that 140 families in the said village were not having either houses or house sites, in the ‘Gramasabha’ meeting, such beneficiaries were selected. It is stated that for the benefit of providing house sites to such beneficiaries, an extent of Ac.4.00 cents of land covered by Survey No.445/3A2, which is abutting the Puntha road, which leads to Kadiyam village, was notified for acquisition. It is stated that in the inquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act, the objections raised by the petitioner were considered and rejected, by recording valid reasons, and thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Reference No.G3/759/2008, dated 05.06.2008, and the same was also published in the District Gazette and also in two daily newspapers on 10.06.2008 and 11.06.2008. In the counter, respondents have denied the allegation of the petitioner that he is a small farmer, and stated that the petitioner is having an extent of Ac.14.99 cents in Survey No.445/3 of Kadiyapulanka village and an extent of Ac.17.49 cents in Vemagiri village, and therefore, the present acquisition does not affect his livelihood, as alleged by him. Counter further states that there are no Government poramboke lands available for acquisition, and the present notified land of the petitioner is suitable for providing house sites to the poor people, as the same is abutting the Puntha road, which leads to Kadiyam village, and is also adjacent to the existing village. 6. Reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner, wherein, it is stated that an extent of Ac.6.00 cents of land, which is on the Western side of the present land on Puntha road, which was earlier acquired for pumping scheme, is not put to use so far. In support of his case, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vanimisetti Venkateswaramma V. State of A.P.[1] 7. I have perused the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. A perusal of the said order shows that each of the objections raised by the petitioner were dealt with by respondent No.1, and the same were overruled, by recording reasons. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that as he is a small farmer, his land cannot be acquired, and that there are other Government lands available in the village, which are suitable for providing house sites. Except the bald statement in the affidavit, the petitioner has not given particulars of any such Government land, which is suitable for acquisition, for providing house sites. In the impugned order, while considering the objections raised by the petitioner, it is categorically stated that there are no other suitable Government lands available for providing house sites to the poor. The plea of the petitioner that he is a small farmer, also, cannot be accepted in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner owns an extent of Ac.14.99 cents in Survey No.445/3 of Kadiyapulanka village and an extent of Ac.17.49 cents in Vemagiri village. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that he is a small farmer, so as to exempt his land from acquisition. Further, it is categorically pleaded in the counter affidavit that acquisition of this land would not affect the livelihood of petitioner. Counter further states that no other Government land is available for acquisition. Therefore, it is evident from the counter that the piece of land belonging to the petitioner, which is notified for acquisition, is adjoining the village and by the side of Puntha road, which leads to Kadiyam village. In that view of the matter, and in view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order, it cannot be said that there are no valid reasons to reject the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Though it is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that earlier, the land notified for the purpose of pumping house in an extent of Ac.6.00 cents to the Western side of the scheduled property, has not been put to use, the said plea was not raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Such an averment is made for the first time in the reply affidavit, and hence, there would not be any opportunity for the respondents to rebut the same. Even according to the petitioner, the said land was notified for pumping scheme, and it is not known as to why the said piece of land was not put to use. In the absence of any such averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and also in the absence of raising such an objection in the inquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act, it is not open for the petitioner to assail the validity of the impugned order on the said ground. 8. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vanimisetti Venkateswaramma (1 supra), but having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the said judgment would not render any assistance in support of his argument in the present case. In the aforesaid case, a learned Single Judge of this Court found fault with the way the power was exercised by the authority in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, having regard to the reasons recorded in the present case by the authority, who has passed the order under Section 5-A(2) of the Act, and in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it cannot be said that the respondents have exercised the power under Section 5-A of the Act either arbitrarily or illegally. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, and further, as it is evident from the counter that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is already issued and published consequent to passing of the impugned order in the writ petition, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th February 2010 ajr [1] 2009 (1) ALD 434