IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3171 of 2008 Between: 1 Puli Satyanarayana, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu R/o.Veeravaram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Puli Kanna Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu R/o.Veeravaram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Peddapuram,East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar,Kirlampudi Mandal, Kirlampudi 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 will be pleased to to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the section 4(1) Notification issued by the District Collector, East Godavari District., Kakinada i.e., Ist. Respondent herein dated.6.12.2006 in ref.No.G2/59/6/2006 proposing to acquire Ac. 0-73 cents of land of the Ist petitioner and Ac.0-73 cents of lands of the 2nd petitioner totalling Ac.1-46 cents in S.No.313/2 of Veeravaram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal,East Godavari District as illegal,arbitrary and politically motivated and for a consequential direction directing the respondents to dropping of acquisition proceedings in this regard and pass such other or further order as this Hon'Ble Court may deem fit and proper in ther circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.LAKSHMANA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJ} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3171 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Notification dated 06.12.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby an extent of Ac.0.73 cents each comprised in Sy.No.313/2 belonging to the petitioners, is proposed to be acquired. Respondent No.1 issued the impugned notification, proposing to acquire the above mentioned land for providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma Programme. In response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A of the Act, the petitioners filed their objections. Respondent No.2 who considered the objections of the petitioners after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing, submitted his report to respondent No.1, who, after considering the same, rejected the objections of the petitioners, vide his order dated 14.03.2007. Following the same, respondent No.1 got declaration under Sec.6 issued on 21.04.2007. More than ten months later, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri M.Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. A reading of order dated 14.03.2007 shows that the only contention raised by the petitioners is that they are small farmers and that if the land owned by the family of the petitioners is divided among them and their two sons each, who are studying, they shall be considered as small farmers and that therefore, their lands cannot be acquired, as alternative lands belonging to the Government are available. Respondent No.1 considered the said objections and held that the family of petitioner No.1 owns wet land of an extent of Ac.4.40 cents and the family of petitioner No.2 owns wet land of an extent of Ac.5.98 cents and that even if Ac.0.73 cents each is acquired from their holding, their families are still left with the extent of Ac.3.67 cents and Ac.5.25 cents respectively. Respondent No.1 also held that since the two sons of the petitioners are students they cannot be considered as agriculturists and their notional shares cannot be computed in order to consider the claim of the petitioners that they are small farmers. At the haring Sri Lakshmana Sarma was critical of approach of respondent No.1 who rejected the plea of the petitioners to consider their sons also as farmers on the ground that they are students. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Under the provisions of the Act, there is no prohibition on acquiring the land of small farmers. However, the State Government issued certain administrative instructions to the effect that whenever alternative lands either belonging to the Government or to private persons are available, acquisition of lands of small farmers shall be avoided as far as possible. Except stating that there are alternative Government lands available, the petitioners have not given details of the extents and survey numbers in which those lands are available, in the enquiry held under Sec.5-A. While negativing the plea of the petitioners that suitable Government lands are available, respondent No.1 rejected their objections to the acquisition. Even assuming that by calculating notional shares of the sons of the petitioners, the family of the petitioners may be technically considered as small farmers, in my considered opinion, in the absence of clear proof of availability of alternative lands, the impugned acquisition proceedings cannot be invalidated. As found by respondent No.1, even after acquiring the small extents of Ac.,0.73 cents each from the petitioners’ family, they are still left with substantial extents of wet land of Ac.3.67 cents and Ac.5.25 cents respectively. While we examine the flipside, the proposed acquisition is for the purpose of providing house sites to persons who have no shelter. It is, therefore, the social obligation of the citizens who possess the land, to spare part of their property to provide shelter to the unfortunate lot in the society, who do not even have a roof of their own to protect themselves. Apart from the above reasoning, one other reason for my disinclination to interfere with the proceedings is that though the order rejecting their objections was passed by respondent No.1 on 14.03.2007, the petitioners have not approached this Court immediately and they have also failed to question the said order. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4137 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 18.02.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Peddapuram,East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar,Kirlampudi Mandal, Kirlampudi East Godavari District. 4. 2CCs to 5. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJ}