THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.13954 of 2008 Dated 26th April, 2011 Between: P.Sathibabu and others …Petitioners And State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Challa Dhanamjaya Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notification, dated 22.02.2008, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and proceedings in Ref.G3/896/2008, dated 04.06.2008, whereby respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioners’ objections. The petitioners are the owners of lands admeasuring Acs.10.20 cents in Survey Nos.380/9B, 380/3A, 383 and 384/2 of Kadiapulanka Village, Kadiam Mandal, East Godavari District. In order to provide house sites to the weaker sections, the respondents have issued the above-mentioned notification, which was published in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In response to the notices issued under Section 5-A of the Act, objections were filed by the petitioners. An enquiry was held into the said objections. By his proceedings, dated 04.06.2008, respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioners’ objections. At the hearing, Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners, has advanced two contentions, namely, (1) that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act has not mentioned the names of petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of vagueness and (2) that respondent No.2 failed to consider the petitioners’ objections properly. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, while opposing the above contentions, stated that the name of petitioner No.2 was published in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on the basis of the revenue record and that at any rate as individual notices were issued to the other petitioners and they have participated in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, no prejudice is caused to those petitioners. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance o n State of Karnataka and others v. Narasimhamurthy and others[1] and Ch.Bhaskara Rao and others v. Government of A.P., Irrigation and CAD Department and others[2] in support of his contention. With respect to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 failed to deal with the objections properly, the learned Government Pleader has invited my attention to the impugned order and stated that respondent No.2 has dealt with all the objections from proper perspective and rejected the same. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were given an opportunity of personal hearing and they have in fact participated in the enquiry after filing the objections. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to their interests. In Gopal Kishan Agarwal and another v. Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad[3], this Court held that mere non-publication of the names of the land owners would not vitiate the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. If on facts, it is proved that even in the absence of publication of names, the persons interested in the lands have filed their objections, which were duly considered, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is not liable for interference only on the ground of non-publication of names. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the notices were issued to all the petitioners and they have participated in the enquiry. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners’ interest. The first contention is accordingly rejected. As regards the second contention, I have carefully gone through the order, dated 04.06.2008. The petitioners have mainly raised two objections before respondent No.2. Their first objection was that the lands are being used for raising nursery and coconut plantation and they are very low lying and not suitable for house sites. The second objection was that there are several alternative lands available, which could be conveniently used. As regards the first objection, respondent No.2 has stated that as no other alternative lands are available and in order to provide house sites to the weaker sections, acquisition of the petitioners’ lands has become necessary. With regard to the suitability, respondent No.2 has stated that the lands can be levelled to the required height to avoid seepage and water logging and therefore there can be no difficulty for utilising the lands for house sites. On the objection regarding the availability of alternative lands, respondent No.2 has dealt with each of these objections and held that for various reasons, they are not available for being utilised as house sites. It is trite that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit as an appellate authority. This Court is only concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision (See Tata Cellular v. Union of India[4] and Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited[5]. Unless the decision of the administrative authorities is vitiated by arbitrariness or proven mala fides, this Court seldom will interfere with such decisions. The respondents have exercised the power of eminent domain and unless the petitioners are able to establish that such power is exercised in violation of the statutory provisions or in an arbitrary or mala fide manner, this Court seldom interferes with such power. As the petitioners failed to establish that the impugned decision suffers from any such vices, I am not inclined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 01.07.2008, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.18008 of 2008, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.18008 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th April, 2011 VGB [1] AIR 1996 SC 90 [2] 1999 (4) ALT 397 (DB) [3] W.P.No.5346 of 2009, dated 19.04.2011 [4] (1994) 6 SCC 651 [5] (2000) 2 SCC 617