*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Writ Petition No.3967 of 2007 %11.06.2010 # Mr.M.Chandra Sekhar Rao and another. ..Petitioners. Vs. $The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. ..Respondents. !Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A.V.Sesha Sai ^Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Land Acquisition. <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 3967 of 2007 ORDER: The District Collector, East-Godavari published notification dated 26-09-2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire 4 acres of land owned by the petitioners, in Yendapalli Village, of U.Kothapalli Mandal, East- Godavari District, for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The petitioners were under the impression that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, and accordingly approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.23388 of 2006. That writ petition was disposed of on 10-11-2006, directing that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held. In response to the notices issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections on 03-10-2006. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, the 3rd respondent herein, considered the same and submitted his remarks to the 2nd respondent. The latter, in turn issued proceedings dated 13-02-2007, overruling the objections. This was followed by publication of draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. The petitioners contend that there is total non-application of mind to the facts of the case, and except that he has simply approved the remarks offered by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent did not undertake any independent appreciation of facts. It is also pleaded that though it was specifically mentioned that the Government lands are available, reference was made to only the subject-matter of the property, and no discussion was undertaken, as to the lands in other survey numbers. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, denying the allegation of the petitioners. It is stated that every objection raised by the petitioners was dealt with objectively, and the final decision to acquire the land was taken, only on finding that the objections are untenable. It is also stated that no Government lands are available for providing of house sites, immediately. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners submitted a detailed representation/ objections in the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. They raised several pleas, such as, that on earlier occasion substantial extent of land owned by their family was acquired for house sites; that the land is triple crop wet land, far away from the village and inaccessible; and large extent of land owned by the Government in Sy.Nos.138/2, 141/3 and 283 of the village is available. The 3rd respondent submitted a report on 02-02-2007, referring to the objections raised by the petitioners and offering his remarks. The 2nd respondent passed order dated 13-02- 2007. After the remarks offered by the 3rd respondent are extracted verbatim, the 2nd respondent made the following endorsement: “In view of the remarks on the objections of the landowners, there is no merit in the objections. The objections are filed only to stay the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated for providing house sites to weaker sections. The objections are rejected as devoid of merit. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada is requested to take further action”. In this context, it needs to be noticed that Section 5-A(2) of the Act imposes an obligation on the appropriate Government to take a final decision, whether or not to proceed with the acquisition, duly taking into account the report, that may be submitted to him. The 2nd respondent is the substitute for the appropriate Government, in this context. He was required to take into account the remarks, undertake discussion and form his own opinion. Mere putting a seal of approval for the remarks offered by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be said to be a proper exercise of statutory power. The only protection given to a citizen against compulsory acquisition cannot be reduced to an empty formality. Therefore, there is a serious defect as to the exercise of power by the 2nd respondent. On merits also, the proceedings suffer from serious setback. The plea of the petitioners, that four acres of fertile wet land was acquired from the family on earlier occasion, is not denied. However, the 3rd respondent sought to belittle that contention by stating that the acquisition was from the father of the petitioners and that no land held by the petitioners was acquired. He proceeded on the assumption that the lands can be acquired from the same family in each generation. Subjecting the same family for repeated acquisitions cannot be countenanced in law. The petitioners have furnished the survey numbers and the extents owned by the Government. In the remarks, the 3rd respondent stated that litigation is pending as regards the land in Sy.No.138/1,2,3, in O.S.No.283 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. No reference is made about the land in Sy.No.283. Even assuming that the litigation is pending, the State with vast resources at its disposal, ought to have taken steps to get the suit disposed of; and it is not as if the provision of house sites cannot await the disposal of the suit. Indiscriminate acquisition of fertile wet lands, that too, in a District like, East-Godavari, would not only cause loss to the owners thereof, but also would result in the ultimate food scarcity. If fertile lands are put to non-agricultural use, valuable yield of food grains therefrom is once for all denied to the society. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the notification challenged therein is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-06-2010. L.R. copy to be marked. KO