HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 4739 of 2010 Between: Sunkara Srinivasa Rao. ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector (Land Acquisition) Kadapa, Kadapa District and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4739 of 2010 ORDER: The proceedings of the first respondent dated 08.01.2010, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition. In the impugned proceedings dated 08.01.2010, the District Collector, Kadapa, records that the Revenue Divisional Officer, vide proceedings dated 28.12.2009, had issued notices to all the land owners calling for their objections; he had conducted an enquiry on 26.12.2009; only two persons had submitted their objections through their advocates stating that acquisition of their lands would be inconvenient for them to carry on their business; and they had requested that these lands be eliminated from acquisition. In the impugned proceedings dated 08.01.2010 the District Collector, having recorded the objections submitted by the petitioner’s wife and the remarks of the Revenue Divisional Officer, rejected the objections of the landholders against the acquisition. Sri Voosa Raghu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that there are alternate government lands in the vicinity; and, instead of acquiring the petitioner’s land, it would be in the interest of the Government to use the Government lands readily available. He would draw attention of this Court to the objections, filed to the Section 5A notice, wherein it is stated that it is the duty of the Government to curtail its expenditure and direct its officers to trace out Government land, if any, at this location to procure the same for public purpose. While the objections do not specifically state whether there are any Government lands readily available in the vicinity, a vague submission is made that efforts should be made by the Government officials to trace out Government lands, if any. Such vague statements cannot be characterized as objections necessitating consideration by the respondents. The petitioners have not even furnished details of the Government lands, allegedly available in the vicinity of the lands under acquisition, even before this Court. Sri Voosa Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has now obtained information regarding availability of alternative Government lands and that he be given an opportunity to place them before the authorities for their consideration. Any information gathered subsequent to passing of the impugned order cannot justify the order under challenge being set at naught. The first respondent cannot be faulted for not considering information which was not placed before him. The order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 02-03- 2010 Usd/asp