THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.2814 of 2007 Date: 28.01.2008 Between: Thanneru Satyanarayana & others. … Petitioners AND Sub-Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Ramana Allu for Sri P. Venugopal THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.2814 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… … Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the notification No.583/07 dated 08.02.2007 published in Eenadu Telugu daily on 09.02.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent insofar as it relates the lands of the petitioners described in para No.3 of the writ affidavit filed in support of above writ petition, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners in respect of the said lands and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” At the hearing Sri Ramana Allu representing Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except three petitioners, namely, petitioner Nos.1, 5 and 8 all other petitioners do not seek to press the writ petition in view of G.O.Ms.No.875 dated 04.12.2007. With regard to the remaining petitioners, who are intending to contest the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land proposed to be acquired is an agricultural land and that without its conversion the same cannot be acquired in view of the prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. He further submitted that there are plenty of Government lands, which are available for being used for providing house sites to urban people under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Programme and that therefore the proposed acquisition of the petitioners’ lands is illegal. With regard to the first contention, this Court in judgment dated 28.12.2007 passed in Writ Petition 18881 of 2006 and batch rejected a similar contention. Therefore, the first contention fails and is accordingly rejected. As regards the second contention, since admittedly the impugned notification envisages holding of enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the petitioners can raise all the legally permissible objections before the land acquisition officer. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings as the petitioners failed to raise any jurisdictional ground to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are permitted to file their objections to the proposed acquisition and on such objections being filed, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the same by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to them before proceeding further with the proposed acquisition. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3608 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.01.2008 ES