THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.1787 of 2007 Date: 28.01.2008 Between: Thondapu Rama Prasad & another. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Satyanarayana Nimmagadda Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.1787 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notification dated 20.11.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), whereby the land belonging to the petitioners comprised in Sy.No.27 of Singampalli Village, Rangampet Mandal, East Godavari District, is proposed to be acquired, order dated 21.01.2007 and declaration dated 23.01.2007 under Section 6 of the Act issued by respondent No.1, as illegal. Heard Sri Nimmaadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions i) that acquisition of the agricultural lands of the petitioners without their conversion for non-agricultural use is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, ii) that the petitioners are small farmers, and iii) that the objections of the petitioners were not properly considered by respondent No.1 in his order dated 21.01.2007. As regards the first contention, this Court in judgment dated 28.12.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.18881 of 2006 and batch rejected a similar contention. Therefore, the first contention fails and is accordingly rejected. Contention Nos.2 and 3 shall be dealt with together as they have overlapping effect. A perusal of order dated 21.01.2007 shows that objections filed by the petitioners were considered in detail. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by respondent No.1 while rejecting the objections of the petitioners. It is legally well settled that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as a Court of appeal and it would only examine whether the decision of statutory/administrative authority suffers from any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety (see Tata Cellular v. Union of India[1] and Reliance Energy Limited and another v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited[2]). Applying this settled law I am satisfied that the impugned order of respondent No.1 does not suffer from any of the grounds mentioned above warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2255 of 2007 and WVMP.No.3327 of 2007 are also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.01.2008 ES [1] (1994) 6 SCC 651 [2] (2007) 8 SCC 1