THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.16652 of 2011 Dated 03rd November, 2011 Between: Sri Pentakota Ramu Naidu and others …Petitioners And The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Narasimha Rao Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 07.02.2011, of respondent No.1, and consequential proceedings, dated 21.03.2011, published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and the notices issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act in respect of various lands belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners are owners of different pieces of land as shown in the petition. Those lands along with larger extents of land totalling to Acs.73.57 cents are notified for acquisition for the purpose of industrial park. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 28.09.2010. In response to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, some of the petitioners filed their objections. An order rejecting those objections was passed on 07.02.2011. Following the said order, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published and notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued by the respondents. Questioning these proceedings, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of personal hearing and that therefore, the impugned order rejecting their objections is in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has not assigned proper reasons for rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners and that therefore the order of rejection of petitioners’ objections is liable to be set aside. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents has opposed the above submissions and stated that the order passed by respondent No.1 does not suffer from any illegality or irrationality warranting interference of this Court. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 has stated in the counter affidavit that in response to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, petitioner Nos.1, 3, 6, 9 and 10 alone filed their objections, that they have also attended the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act on 19.10.2010, and that they were given an opportunity of personal hearing. It is further stated that the said petitioners have filed statements claiming compensation at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, apart from claiming additional package of Rs.50,000/-, provision to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents of land towards house site and a buffalo at subsidised rate and that the said objections were considered and an order rejecting the same was passed. In the reply affidavit, the petitioners have denied their attending the personal hearing. Since there was a dispute as to whether respondent No.2 has held an enquiry and has given an opportunity to the persons, who filed their objections, this Court has summoned the record. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has produced the record before the Court, a perusal of which, would show that petitioner Nos.1, 3, 6, 9 and 10, who filed their objections appeared before respondent No.2 on 19.10.2010 and gave their statements, wherein they have claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation, apart from claiming additional package of Rs.50,000/-, provision of Ac.0.02 cents towards house site and a buffalo at a subsidised rate. Thus, from the record, this Court is satisfied that an opportunity of being heard is given to petitioner Nos.1, 3, 6, 9 and 10, who alone filed their objections and accordingly, I find no merit in the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 has committed violation of principles of natural justice in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. As regard the reasons mentioned in the proceedings rejecting the objections of the petitioners, a perusal of the order of respondent No.1 would show that each of the objections raised by the petitioners was considered and convincing reasons have been assigned. No specific infirmity is pointed out by the petitioners with reference to any of these reasons. The law is well settled that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision (see Tata Cellular v. Union of India[1] and Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited[2]). Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of respondent No.1 in rejecting the objections of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the purpose of acquisition is for providing infrastructure for industries, which undoubtedly is in the overwhelming public interest. As the petitioners failed to prove that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated by any illegality, no interference is called for with the impugned proceedings. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 17.06.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.19997 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.3614 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd November, 2011 VGB [1] (1994) 6 SCC 651 [2] (2000) 2 SCC 617