IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3770 of 2008 Between: 1 Peddinti Sitaramacharyulu S/o. Ananta Seshacharyulu R/o.Kolanka Village, Pithapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 2 Peddinti Srinivasacharyulu S/o. Ananta Seshacharyulu R/o.Kolanka Village, Pithapuram Mandal, E.G. District. 3 Peddinti Venkata Rao S/o. Ananta Seshacharyulu R/o.Kolanka Village, Pithapuram Mandal, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (Land Acquisition) 2 Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 Revenue Divisional/Land Acquisiton Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.GOPALAKRISHNAMACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) whereby an extent of Ac.3.00 of land belonging to the petitioners comprised in Survey No.373 of Kolanka Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, is proposed to be acquired. An extent of Ac.3.00 of land was notified for acquisition under notification, dated 31.10.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. In response to the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections to respondent No.3 and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, he submitted his report to respondent No.2, who by order, dated 30.01.2008 rejected the said objections. The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the said order and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act thereafter. Heard Sri A.Gopala Krishnamacharyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are small farmers and that acquisition of their lands when alternative lands belonging to the Government and wealthy farmers are available, is wholly arbitrary and illegal. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel but I am unable to accept the same. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2, which extracted the objections of the petitioners and the remarks of respondent No.3, shows that apart from pleading that the petitioners are small farmers, they have merely stated that there are other suitable Government lands. The petitioners have not given any details as to the survey numbers and the extents of the Government lands or the lands belonging to the alleged wealthy farmers. In the absence of any such details being given, the reasons contained in the order of respondent No.2 cannot be said to suffer from any error. The learned counsel, however, pointed out from the averments contained in the affidavit that the petitioners were able to give the details of the Government poramboke lands available in the Village. I am afraid this Court cannot take note of the averments, which are made for the first time in the writ petition without raising the same before respondent No.3. The object of providing an opportunity of filing objections and personal hearing to the land owners under Section 5A of the Act is to enable them to come out with detailed objections for consideration by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners have not given any reason for their failure to give the details of the alleged alternative lands belonging to the Government and other wealthy farmers, before respondent No.3. The law is well settled that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as a Court of appeal and is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision. Therefore, I am unable to entertain the request of the petitioners to direct the respondents to re-consider their cases with reference to the details, which are given in this writ petition for the first time. Unless the petitioners specifically pleaded with reference to the particulars about the availability of alternative lands, the issue whether the petitioners were small farmers or not pales into insignificance. The said question would have had any relevance only if it was shown by the respondents that alternative lands were available and, therefore, acquisition of the lands belonging to the small farmers was illegal. Since the petitioners have failed to show availability of alternative lands, the acquisition cannot be declared as illegal even assuming that the petitioners are the small farmers. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.4916 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni