HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.849 of 2009 Date : 21-6-2011 Between : M.K.S.R.K.N. Prasad s/o.Subba Rao and others .. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Krishna District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri Sitaram Chaparla Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P. for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 : None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification dated 12-3-12007 issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The petitioners also assailed order dated 13-12-2008 of respondent No.1 by which their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, were rejected. The petitioners are owners of lands admeasuring Ac.6-18 cents in various sub-divisions of Sy.No.565 of Musunuru village and Mandal, Krishna District. The said lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act which was published in English daily newspaper dated 25-3-2007. The lands were sought to be acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma housing scheme by the State Government. In response to the said notification all the petitioners filed their separate objections before the Collector. By order dated 13-12- 2008, the District Collector, Krishna District, rejected those objections and in pursuance thereof, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. When the Writ Petition came up at the Interlocutory stage on earlier occasions, this court adjourned the case to enable the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition to submit relevant material regarding availability of alternative land in the village as it was the plea of the petitioners that there is about Ac.168.27 cents of surplus land surrendered by the declarants who were found to be surplus land holders and which is vested with the Government apart from Ac.3000-00 of AWD land in Musunuru village which is fit for allotment of house sites. Accordingly, an additional counter-affidavit has been filed and a list of Government lands in Musunuru village was also enclosed to the additional counter-affidavit. Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that there are several extents of waste lands belonging to the Government available in the village and that in addition to the same an extent of Ac.25-19 cents covered by Sy.No.744 to 747/7 was earlier identified but as the respondents yielded to political pressure, the said proposal was dropped by them and they have issued the present notification. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that as evident from the list of Government lands enclosed to the additional counter-affidavit of respondent No.2, there are no alternative suitable lands available in the village and therefore the respondents had no alternative other than acquiring the petitioners’ lands. A perusal of the order rejecting the petitioners’ objections shows that under objection No.4, some of the petitioners pleaded that Ac.168.27 cents of surplus land surrendered by declarants under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is available in addition to Ac.3000-00 of AWD land in the village. While dealing with the said objection, the District Collector stated that there is no suitable Government land or ceiling surplus land available in the village and hence the acquisition of private land has become inevitable for providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma Programme. Under objection No.8, it was pleaded that there is assigned land available with the beneficiaries and the same is abutting the village which can be resumed and the assignees can be given alternative land as there is sufficient AWD land available. The District Collector stated that there is no assigned land suitable for house sites purpose available in the village. In order to examine whether the District Collector has overlooked the ground realities while rejecting the objections of the petitioners, I have summoned the list of Government lands as noted above. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition verified various survey numbers which were pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the hearing with reference to the register pertaining to No.3 account and submitted that none of the lands in Sy.No.489/2 are available for house sites. The learned Government Pleader fairly stated that the record pertaining to Sy.Nos.46/3, 47/1 and 47/2 admeasuring about Ac.7.70 cents is not presently available. The respondents have exercised the power of eminent domain vested in them under law. The petitioners being the owners of the land, are entitled to raise legitimate objections against the proposed acquisition. Section 5-A of the Act provided for an opportunity to the land owners to submit their objections and an obligation has been cast on the Collector to objectively consider those objections before seeking to proceed further with the proposed land acquisition. In the instant case, all the objections raised by the petitioners have been considered and cogent reasons have been assigned by the District Collector for rejecting them. As noted above, even this court has summoned the record and verified whether any alternative land is available in order to save the petitioners’ lands. But, after a perusal of the record produced by the learned Government Pleader, this court is satisfied that the decision of the respondents to acquire the petitioners’ land does not suffer from any arbitrary exercise of power as I have no doubt to disbelieve the plea of the respondents that alternative dry lands which are suitable for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society are not available in the village to avoid acquisition of the petitioners’ lands. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, interim order dated 27-1-2009 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.1066/2009 and W.V.M.P.No.503/2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 21-6-2011 AM