IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No. 7776 of 2008 Between: 1. Abbireddi Suryachandra Reddy, s/o Bulli Raju, r/o Nagulapalli, U. Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Anisetti Gopala Krishna Reddy s/o Satyanarayana Murthy, r/o Nagulapalli, U. Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary (LA)., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or proceedings especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of 2nd respondent vide Ref.G2/2127/2006, dated 09-06-2006 and the consequential proceedings of 2nd respondent vide Ref.G2/2127/2006 dated 22-03-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and a colourable exercise of powers, non application of mind and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the lands of the petitioners and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V. L. N. G. K. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER: - Petitioners state that first petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1-32 cents in S.No.364/2 and second petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands in an extent of Ac.0-38 cents in S.No.364/3; Ac.1-15 cents in S.No.365/1; and Ac.0-90 cents in S.No.366/1B, situated in Nagulapalli village of U. Kothapalli Mandal. As the lands belong to them and some others are required for a public purpose i.e. for construction of houses to weaker sections under Indiramma Scheme, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was published on 09-06-2006. The said notification is challenged on various grounds. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondents. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that if the lands proposed are acquired and houses are constructed for weaker sections, heavy damage would be caused to the crops of the remaining lands, because the flow of water will be arrested during floods and rainy season. Despite such objections, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by virtue of the delegation of powers, without any application of mind simply rejected stating that it is imaginary. 4. On instructions learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the said acquisition will not cause any obstruction for free flow of water and no damage will occur to the crops in the remaining lands. 5. It is not as though the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition for the first time. Questioning the very same notification they approached this Court and filed W.P.No.14723 of 2006, W.P.No.24415 of 2006 and W.P.No.16834 of 2007 and all those writ petitions were disposed of. In fact, the enquiry as provided for under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court only the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted. In the said enquiry opportunity of personal hearing was not given. Again by virtue of the orders passed by this Court personal hearing was also given to the petitioners. Of-course, as stated, now the petitioners grievance is that the said personal hearing and consideration is only a colourful exercise, but not with regard to the realities. This Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners. When once the Revenue Divisional Officer had complied with the mandatory requirements provided for under Section 5-A of the Act i.e. accepting the objections, affording opportunity of personal hearing, the Courts shall not interfere with the said process. With regard to objection No.4, i.e. about the flow of water, the Revenue Divisional Officer’s remarks appear to be just and reasonable. Further, as this Court has observed that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is strictly in accordance with the provisions of law and as the Government Pleader on instructions has stated that the acquisition in question will not cause any obstruction for free flow of water and there won’t be any damage to the crop in the remaining lands, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said process. Accordingly, I see no merits in the writ petition. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Dt.16-04-2008 GLV ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER Copy to: 1. The Secretary (LA)., State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}