THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. Nos. 3047 and 26608 of 2009 Common order: The petitioners, who own small extents of lands in Singarayapalem village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 3047 of 2009 questioning the notification issued by respondent No.1, namely the District Collector, Krishna, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking to acquire the lands owned by them for the purpose of Indiramma Pathakam Housing Scheme, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners stated that they participated in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and submitted their objections stating that they are economically backward class persons, they are eking out their livelihood in the land by growing vegetables and are residing therein by constructing residential houses. They further stated that as the respondents without passing any orders on their objections were trying to demolish their houses, they are constrained to approach this Court. This Court, by order dated 17.02.2009, while admitting the writ petition, passed the following interim order: There shall be interim stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the subject lands until further orders. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from proceeding with other steps under the Land Acquisition Act, subject to the result of the writ petition. As this Court did not preclude the authorities from proceeding with other steps under the Act, the respondents proceeded further in the matter, and respondent No.1 on 17.09.2009, passed orders under Section 5-A of the Act, overruling the objections taken by the petitioners. Questioning the orders dated 17.09.2009, passed by respondent No.1 under Section 5-A of the Act overruling their objections to the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P. No. 26608 of 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioners raised objections to the acquisition of their lands in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act stating that are owning small extents of lands, they are small farmers growing vegetables and residing in the lands by constructing and that if their lands are acquired, their livelihood would be affected and that there are other government vacant lands suitable for acquisition, but respondent No.1 without considering the same and without applying his mind to the objections raised by the petitioners and without considering the question as to whether the petitioners are small farmers or not, passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2009, overruling the objections taken by the petitioner mechanically, on the strength of the report of respondent No.2. Hence, the prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Respondent No.2 filed counter. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue reiterating the counter-averments submitted that the lands of the petitioners which are sought to be acquired are vacant lands and no houses exist therein, and to substantiate that, he produced photographs of the land. He submitted that the lands sought to be acquired are adjacent to the town which is more suitable for housing purposes, and except the said vacant land, there is no government vacant land available, for housing purposes. There is dire necessity to provide housing to poor persons. After considering the objections raised by the petitioners in proper perspective, they were rejected. He further submitted that two petitioners, namely petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are not small farmers, they own more than Acs. 3.00 of land and they come under BPL category. It is further contended that the areas that are covered by residential houses are not being acquired. Hence, he prayed that the writ petitions be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader of Land Acquisition for the respondents. Though the petitioners contend that the lands in question, belonging to them, which the respondents are seeking to acquire, are not vacant and are covered by houses constructed by them, the same is disputed by the respondents, and it is their case that they are vacant, and to evidence that they have produced the photographs of the land along with the inspection report of the respondent No.3, namely the Tahsildar, Pedana Mandal, which indicate that they are vacant and are under cultivation. May be the petitioners are small farmers and they are owning small extents of lands, but that by itself cannot be a ground not to acquire their land, particularly when the same is being acquired by the respondents for a public purpose, namely for providing houses sites to the beneficiaries under the Indiramma Programme, by following the due process of law. This apart, it is the case of the respondents that the land in question, belonging to the petitioners, which is sought to be acquired is just adjacent to the town and is more suitable for house sites. It is not as if the respondents are acquiring the only the land of the petitioners and are acquiring without following the due process of law and without paying compensation, for the respondents are acquiring the lands of all the persons that are required for acquisition by following the due process of law and paying them compensation, which can well be demonstrated from the stand taken by the respondents in the counter. As can be seen from the counter averments of the respondents, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 27.12.2008. Thereafter, it was published 28.12.2008 and in two news papers on 01.01.2009, while the substance was published in the locality on 02.01.2009. The petitioners though filed writ petition in W.P. No. 3047 of 2009 questioning the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the fact remains, as noted above, this Court did not stay the other process under the Act. As this Court, except dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question, did not grant stay of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and did not preclude them from taking other steps under the Act, the respondents proceeded further in the matter and issued notices under Section 5-A of the Act on 22.01.2009 calling for objections from the petitioners, if any, to be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, on or before 07.02.2009. It appears that the petitioners appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, with their objections. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, having conducted the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and having considered the objections taken by the petitioners, forwarded his report to respondent No.1, namely the District Collector, Krishna District, stating that there is no other suitable land available for providing house sites and that the land proposed to be acquired is located adjacent to the main road leading from Pedana to Balliparru. Thereafter, respondent No.1, based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, passed final orders on the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on 17.09.2009, which orders are assailed in W.P. No. 26608 of 2009, and considering the fact that the order dated 17.09.2009, passed by respondent No.1 under Section 5-A of the Act, is a reasoned one based on the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, I am of the considered opinion no interference is called for therewith. Since the respondents have taken further steps pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition in W.P. No. 3047 of 2009, which questioned the same, and the same is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P. No. 3047 of 2009 is dismissed as infructuous, while W.P. No. 26608 of 2009 stands dismissed on merits. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: October, 2010. KSR