IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELVTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.290 of 2008 Between: Vallabhaneni Balaji Babu and 2 others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Krishna District and another .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.290 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Notification dated 24.07.2006 and Order dated 17.11.2007, passed under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), by which, the lands belonging to the petitioners, comprised in Sy.Nos.23/2A1, 23/2A2 and 23/2A3, situated at Undrapudi village, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District, are proposed to be acquired. Heard Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition, and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced the following contentions: 1. The initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Act for acquiring agricultural lands of the petitioners without converting the same for non-agricultural use is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006; 2. Notification under Section 4(1) was not published in news papers, having any circulation in the area; 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not properly considered the objections of the petitioners with regard to availability of land which was acquired in the year 1975, and therefore, the order of respondent No.1, rejecting the petitioners’ objections, is liable to be set aside, as it suffers from non-application of mind; With regard to the first contention, the issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court dated 28.12.2007 passed in W.P.18881/2007 and batch wherein a similar contention has been rejected. As regards the second contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the two news papers, viz., ‘Prajashakti’ and ‘Janata’ in which notification under Sec.4(1) was published, have no circulation in the area, in which the lands are located, and therefore, notification under Sec.4(1) itself is illegal. The learned counsel, however, candidly admitted that the petitioners have not raised any issue relating to either non-publication of notification issued under Sec.4(1) or the news papers not having circulation in the area in their objections filed before the Land Acquisition Officer. He, however, stated that the petitioners raised objection that notification under Sec.4(1) is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to legal provisions and against public policy. The said ground being too vague and generic does not comprehend the aforementioned contention raised for the first time in this writ petition. The question, whether publication of notification under Sec.4(1) is in conformity with the said provisions, more so, when the petitioners contend that the papers in which notification was published had no circulation in the area, is required to be determined by fact finding authority, i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5-A of the Act. As the petitioners have not specifically raised these objections before the Land Acquisition Officer in the enquiry held under Section 5-A, in my view, they are not entitled to raise the said objections for the first time in a writ petition. Had the petitioners raised the issue before the Land Acquisition Officer, the same would had facilitated him to go into this factual dispute and give a finding thereon. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court ordinarily does not probe into a dispute, which falls in the realm of appreciation of facts. As held by the Apex Court, this Court is concerned only with the decision making process and not the merits of the decision (See Tata Cellular vs. Union of India[1]). I am, therefore, not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In so far as the contention relating to the availability of land acquired in the year 1975, Order dated 17.11.2007, passed by respondent No.2 extracted the objections filed by the petitioners in this regard and the findings/remarks of respondent No.2, Land Acquisition Officer, Gudivada. It is apt to extract the same hereunder: “That the land acquired in the year 1975 has already been assigned. Since no Government vacant land is available, hence, this land is proposed for acquisition. That the land proposed for acquisition is quite suitable for providing house sites. The individuals have admitted in the Sl.No.2 of their objections, statements that the land is nearer to the main road. Only after a thorough inspection of all the lands in the village, the lands were selected for acquisition.” The above reproduced objections did not give the details of the extent of the land acquired in the year 1975 and the land which is vacant. In the findings/remarks of the Land Acquisition Officer, it is stated that the land acquired in the year 1975 was already assigned and that there is no Government vacant land available. The learned counsel for the petitioners is critical about the approach of respondent No.2 by pointing out that he has not given any details as to the extent of land assigned. But, unless the petitioners had given necessary details regarding the extent, which was remaining vacant, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 is under obligation to come out with the details as to the extent of land, which was assigned. The initial burden is on the petitioners to raise their pleas by giving necessary details, and if the respondents have not considered them, the petitioners may have had legitimate grievance. That is not the case here. The petitioners failed to place before respondent No.2 any details showing that the findings/remarks of respondent No.2 that the land acquired in the year 1975 was already assigned, are not correct. Even in this writ petition, no such details are given. In the face of these facts, I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that either respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 have not applied their mind to the objections raised by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai[2]. I have carefully considered the ratio laid down in the said case, and I am of the view that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case, because it is not the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 denied them a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Once respondent No.2 heard them and submitted his findings/remarks to respondent No.1, no further opportunity need be given to the petitioners by the latter while passing a final order by considering the findings/remarks of respondent No.2. In the aforementioned view of the matter, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and substance, and hence the same is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.301 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed, as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 12.02.2008 Dsr [1] (1994) 6 SCC 651 [2] (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 627