IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23057 of 2008 Between: Satyavolu Seshagiri Rao, S/o. S. Paparao, R/o. Marampudi Village, Rajahmundry, East Godavary District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadiyam Mandal, Kadiam, 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, more especially a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notiﬁcation U/s. 4(1) of L.A. Act dated 14-9-2008 for acquiring land belongs to the petitioner to the extent of Ac. 1.36 cents situated in RS No. 47/2B of Kadiyapusavaram Village, Hamlet of Kadiam Village, Kadiam Mandal of East Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.UDAYA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of land in survey No.47/2B of Kadiyapusavaram Hamlet of Kadiam Village and Mandal, East Godavari District. It is stated that on two occasions part of the said land was acquired, for providing house sites. Through a notiﬁcation, dated 14.09.2008, an extent of Ac.1.36 cents of land, in that survey number, is sought to be acquired, for providing house sites. The petitioner states that, on account of the political pressure, his land alone is being acquired, repeatedly, for providing house sites. He complains that the Sarpanch and other oﬃcials are preventing him from cultivating the land and are threatening that the land would be taken away, at any cost. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is, no doubt, true that an extent of Ac.1.36 cents of land of the petitioner is notiﬁed for acquisition. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is being held and in fact, the petitioner is said to have submitted his representation. In the recent past, this Court took the view that the list of beneﬁciaries must be furnished to the land owners. The circumstances, under which the land of the petitioner alone is being subjected to acquisition repeatedly, need to be speciﬁcally dealt with by the District Collector, while disposing of the objections raised under Section 5-A of the Act. Further, once the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is being held, the question of taking possession of the land would not arise, till an award is passed. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the ﬁrst respondent shall furnish a list of beneficiaries to the petitioner and it shall be open to the petitioner to submit objections to the same, apart from other objections. The District Collector shall consider the representation of the petitioner, on various aspects, and pass reasoned orders. The possession of the petitioner shall not be interfered with, be it by the respondents, or by other oﬃcials, as long as the award is not passed, in respect of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.22.10.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ