HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.2879 of 2009 Date : 26-7-2011 Between : Yerram Reddy Krishna Reddy and others .. Petitioners and The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District and two others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Kunareddy Anji Reddy Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not properly considering the petitioners’ objections in the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") in respect of the lands comprised in Sy.Nos.532/2, 533, 534/A, 534/B, 534/C and 535 of Brahmanapally, Hamlet of Kamepalli village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential relief of setting aside orders in Rc.No.490/08/C1, dated 10-12-2008 and Rc.No.562/08/C1, dated 26-12-2008 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri Kunareddy Anjireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners are the owners of small extents of lands which are notified for acquisition for providing rehabilitation to the displaced persons under the Pulichintala Project. In pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioners have filed their objections. In their objections, the petitioners stated that they are small farmers and that acquisition of their lands would deprive them of their livelihood. By the impugned orders, respondent No.2 has rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. While not disputing the petitioners’ claim that they are small farmers, respondent No.2 however stated in his order that since Brahmanapally village, in which the petitioners’ lands are situated, is chosen as one of the villages for providing rehabilitation to the displaced persons under the Pulichintala Project, it is not possible to exempt the lands of the petitioners from acquisition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are alternative lands available in the vicinity and that the petitioners cannot be deprived of small extents of lands owned and possessed by them. He further stated that the lands in Sy.Nos.531, 532 and 533 are abutting the Guntur-Hyderabad highway having huge commercial value. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that since the petitioners’ lands are required for rehabilitation of the displaced persons under the Pulichintala Project, the respondents have found it inevitable to acquire their lands. The power of eminent domain is no doubt vested in the State for acquiring the lands of private persons for a public purpose. However, such a power needs to be exercised in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. Even though there is no bar on the acquisition of the lands belonging to the small farmers under the provisions of the Act, the State, realizing the hardship that may be caused to the small farmers if the small extents owned by them are acquired, have been issuing orders from time to time to avoid acquisition of their lands unless such acquisition is found inevitable. Even though the petitioners, in their objections stated that there are alternative lands available for acquisition, respondent No.2 has failed to refer to and meet the said objection. The reason given by respondent No.2 suggests that he was under compulsion to acquire the petitioners’ lands merely because Brahmanapally village was selected as the centre for reconstruction and rehabilitation. In the considered opinion of this court where the hardship that may be caused to the petitioners outweighs the decision of the officials to select Brahmanapally village as one of the centres, it requires reconsideration. Unless the respondents find that the acquisition of the lands is absolutely unavoidable, they need to consider excluding the lands of those persons who are small farmers. Lest, in order to rehabilitate one section of displaced persons, another section of equally disabled persons would be denied their source of livelihood. Since respondent No.2 failed to record proper reasons in rejecting the petitioners’ objections, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and they are accordingly quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the objections of the petitioners by affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, pass orders afresh and communicate the same to the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, interim order 17-2-2009 is vacated and WPMP No.3698/2009 and WVMP No.1406/2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 26-7-2011 AM