IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 25531 of 2008 Between: Injam Satyanarayana Prasad S/o. Ramaiah R/o. Bheemavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Krishna District Machilipatnam. 2 The Sub - Collector Krishna District Vijayawada. 3 The Tahsildar Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned endorsement in Rc.B2/3268/07, dt.10-09-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioner without conducting enquiry and without giving opportunity to the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner in the month of March 2008 in terms of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in WP.No. 16898/2008 dt. 06-08-2008 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25531 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land, which is owned by the petitioner, is among the Ac.2.00 sought to be acquired for the purpose of house sites to weaker sections. Petitioner’s grievance is that this Ac.0.50 cents of land forms part of Ac.6.81 cents, and that, if house sites were assigned adjacent to his remaining extent of agricultural land, it would be difficult for him to protect his produce. As an alternative the petitioner himself offered Ac.0.50 cents of his land elsewhere in the village. Petitioner states that he submitted a representation requesting that this land be acquired instead of his agricultural land of Ac.0.50 cents. Since his representation was not considered, he invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. This Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation. On the allegation that the petitioner had sold the said extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land in the village, and that he was not the owner thereof, the first respondent rejected his representation. It is the petitioner’s case that he still continues to own Ac.0.50 cents of land, that the finding of the District Collector that he had sold away Ac.0.50 cents of land is perverse and that, if an opportunity were to be afforded to him afresh, he would produce evidence to substantiate his contention that he still continued to own the land, and had not sold away the land in question. Petitioner would seek to have the impugned order set aside and the first respondent directed to consider his representation afresh after affording him an opportunity of being personally heard. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, would submit that an award has already been passed and, at this stage, no useful purpose would be served in directing that the petitioner’s representation be considered by the first respondent. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that possession has not as yet been taken, that, under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government is at liberty to withdraw from acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken and that nothing precluded the respondents from considering the petitioner’s representation afresh after giving him an opportunity of being heard. Ends of justice would be met if, while setting aside the order of the District Collector dated 10-09-2008, the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation afresh after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. Needless to state that it is for the petitioner to establish, before the first respondent, that he still continues to be the owner of Ac.0.50 cents of land situated in the village. The first respondent shall, after compliance with the principles of natural justice, pass orders, on the petitioner’s representation, in accordance with law. The entire exercise, in this regard, shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:21-11-2008 Note:Furnish copy within one week bo usd To 1 The District Collector Krishna District Machilipatnam. 2 The Sub - Collector Krishna District Vijayawada. 3 The Tahsildar Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Two CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, Hdyerabad (OUT). 5 Two CD copies