THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition Nos.20990 and 21010 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, the notification issued by the first respondent, namely, the District Collector, West Godavari District, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 01.07.2006, proposing to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioners situated at Pittala Vemavaram Village, Peravalli Mandal, West Godavari District, is under challenge. Hence, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal. The petitioners raised three grounds opposing the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned notification, namely, (1) that some of their lands were acquired in earlier acquisition proceedings; (2) that they are small farmers owning small extents of land and (3) that suitable alternative lands are available. This Court, while issuing Rule nisi on 11.10.2006, granted interim stay in the matter. The second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari District, filed separate counters in the matters denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government to develop model villages and towns, the first respondent issued the impugned notification under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the subject lands belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of providing house sites under INDIRAMMA Programme to the beneficiaries selected by duly conducting Grama Sabha. That thereafter, even notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued and pursuant thereto, the petitioners have also submitted their objections. That thereupon, the second respondent, through his endorsement, dated 31.08.2006, rejected the objections and subsequently on 08.09.2006, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued. At that stage, the petitioners approached this Court and obtained interim orders. Thus, it is stated that the respondents could not proceed further in the matter. It is categorically stated in the counter that there are no alternative suitable lands available in the village. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as per Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to pass an order rejecting the objections raised during 5-A enquiry, but not the Revenue Divisional Officer, as was done in the present cases. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents has not disputed the legal position. But, however, she contended that the petitioners cannot raise objections to the subject acquisition proceedings stating that they are small farmers and that some of their lands were already acquired in earlier acquisition proceedings, inasmuch as repeated acquisitions and owning small extents of land do not come under the way of the respondents in acquiring the lands for a public purpose. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court in Venkataswamappa v. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)[1] and P.Venkat Reddy and others v. Government of A.P., Industries and Commerce Department, Hyderabad and others[2]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. As can be seen from the material on record, the subject lands belong to the petitioners were sought to be acquired by the respondent for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society under INDIRAMMA Programme by issuing the impugned notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, as there are no alternative suitable lands. Thereafter, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners have even submitted their objections to the proposed acquisition and after considering the same, the second respondent, through his endorsement, dated 31.08.2006, rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued. As contented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Venkataswamappa (1 supra) that as long as the land sought to be acquired is for public purpose involving larger public interests, the person from whom the land is sought to be acquired cannot contend that on earlier occasion also, some of his lands were acquired for such or some other public purpose. Further, it is also well settled by this Court in the case of P.Venkat Reddy (2 supra) that when the acquisition is needed for a public purpose and it is inevitable, the same cannot be avoided or invalidated on the ground of hardship to the landowners, as they have an effective alternative remedy by way of reference under Section 18 of Act to claim appropriate compensation for the land. In the instant case, the subject lands belonging to the petitioners were sought to be acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society under INDIRAMMA Programme, which comes under public purpose. Further, it is categorically stated in the counter that there are no other suitable lands. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions, as stated supra, opposing the impugned acquisition proceedings, are devoid of merit. Be that as it may, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to reject the objections raised under Section 5-A of the Act, but not the Revenue Divisional Officer. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the objections raised by the petitioners during the course of Section 5-A enquiry, were rejected by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Office, which cannot be sustained. On this limited ground, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act are liable to be set aside. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.20360 and batch, a learned single Judge of this Court had quashed the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The declaration under Section 6(1) in both the writ petitions is quashed; (ii) The petitioners are at liberty to make representations/additional representations raising objections/additional objections within a period of two weeks from the date of a copy of this order; (iii) As and when such representations are made as mentioned in clause (ii) above, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer shall conduct fresh enquiry after giving an opportunity to all the petitioners, prepare a report and submit the same to the District Collector; and (iv) After receiving the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector shall take final decision under Section 5-A of the Act before further proceeding under the Act. If any of the petitioners have any grievance thereafter, they are at liberty to assail the land acquisition proceedings by taking fresh proceedings before the appropriate Forum. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:10.03.2010 VGB [1] AIR 1997 SC 503 [2] 1999 (1) ALT 442