THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3508 of 2007 Dated: 05.02.2008 Between: Obilineni Ramakrishna Rao … Petitioner AND The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Gullapalli Radhakrishnan Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3508 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification dated 19.10.2006 issued under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), whereby an extent of Ac.1.94 cents of land situated in Sy.Nos.386/1, 386/2, 386/3, 386/4 and 416/2 of Dangeru Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District is proposed to be acquired. Heard Sri G. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: 1. The proposed acquisition of the land, which is used for fish tanks, without its conversion for non-agricultural use is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. 2. The land belonging to the petitioner to the extent of Ac.2.56 cents in R.S.No.131/1 was acquired in the year 1977 and that there is no justification to acquire his further land; and 3. The land proposed to be acquired is being used as fish tanks and is therefore not suitable for being used as house sites. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposing the above contentions submitted that the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected in view of Judgment dated 28.12.2007 in Writ Petition No.18881 of 2006 and batch. As regards the second contention, she submitted that there is no record of earlier acquisition and the petitioner failed to produce any evidence in support thereof. With regard to the third contention, she drew my attention to order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada, wherein it is found that at present paddy crop is cultivated in the proposed lands. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. As contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the contention relating to non-conversion is no longer res integra in view of judgment dated 28.12.2007 of this Court in Writ Petition No.18881 of 2006 and batch. The first contention is therefore rejected. With regard to the plea of earlier acquisition, respondent No.3 in his order stated that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence in support of the said contention and that his verification of office records does not reveal any such earlier acquisition. Hence, this contention which is without merit is rejected. As regards the contention of non-suitability of the land, respondent No.3 in his order mentioned that at present paddy crop is being cultivated in the land. In my view, whether paddy crop is being raised on the proposed land or the same is being used as fish tanks, may not be decisive for the reason that there is no prohibition of using of fish tanks for housing purposes. If the State does not find suitable alternative lands, it is always open to it to utilize the land, which is used as fish tank for the purpose of housing. Indubitably, providing house sites for the lower strata of the society is an avowed public purpose, which a welfare State is committed to. If it is unable to procure lands, which are better suited, it may, in situations like the present one, choose to acquire a wet land or land, which was used as fish tanks. In such situations, there is no justification for the Courts to prevent the State from discharging its social obligation of providing shelter to the poorer sections of the society. On a careful consideration of the order passed by respondent No.3, I am satisfied that the same does not suffer from any error warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4474 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.02.2008 ES