IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1438 of 2008 Between: R.Doraswamy and 7 others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1438 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the notification dated 18.12.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for shot ‘the Act’) whereby the lands belonging to the petitioners comprised in Sy.Nos.397/3-B2, 397/4, 397/6 and 397/8 of Karakambadi village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District are proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to certain beneficiaries. Heard Sri Sudheer for Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition. A perusal of the records show that the impugned notification was issued in order to provide house sites to weaker sections of people under Indiramma Scheme and the objectors are permitted to file their objections within 30 days before the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. Therefore, ex facie I am not inclined to interdict further proceedings proposed to be taken up in pursuance of the impugned notification. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 17.01.2007, the respondents shall identify the beneficiaries, but no such identification is made before issuing the impugned notification. The learned counsel also submitted that there are alternative lands available for providing house sites and that therefore, proposal to acquire the petitioners’ lands is illegal. I have not felt persuaded to accept these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage for the reason that the Act provides for appropriate opportunity by way of filing objections under Sec.5-A, and this is what is precisely provided in the impugned notification, wherein, as noted above, objections are called for against the proposed acquisition. Whether the alleged directions contained in G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 17.01.2007 are violated by the respondents, and what will be the legal consequences of such violation are issues which may be germane for consideration after completion of enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the event an adverse order is passed by the Collector on completion of enquiry under Sec.5-A, it is always open to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy to question such an order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is premature and deserves to be dismissed. Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 29.01.2008 Dsr