IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2809 of 2008 Between: Veerla Edukondalu S/o Venkaiah R/o Punadipadu Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary, Revenue (land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Krishna District at machilipatnam. 3 Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Collector, Krishna District at Vijayawada. 4 Tahsildar, Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent contained in proceedings in Rc. G45766/2007 dated 25-01-2008 rejecting the objections of the petitioner directed against the acquisitionof the land of the petitioner admeasuring ac. 3-48 cents in Sy. Nos. 68/2B and 69/A of Kankipadu Village and mandal, Krishna District, is arbitrary irrational and without jurisdiction and consequently set a side the same and direct the respondents to forbear from acquiring the said lands of the petitioner pursuant to the Land acquisition Notification Published in District Gazette No. 257 of 2007 dated 15-12-2007 and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2809 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 25.01.2008 of Respondent No.2, whereby the objections of the petitioner to the proposed acquisition of Ac.3.48 cents of land, comprised in Sy.Nos.68/2B and 69/A of Kankipadu Village and Mandal of Krishna District, were rejected. Heard Sri V.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. The above mentioned extent of land, belonging to the petitioner, was notified for acquisition under the impugned notification. In response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A of the Act, the petitioner submitted his objections on 08.01.2008 to respondent No.3. One of the main objections raised by him was that there were several suitable Government lands available for providing house sites to weaker sections. In his report sent by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, the gist of which is extracted by respondent No.2 in his order dated 25.01.2008, the said objection of the petitioner was considered as under: “There are no vacant house site plots available in previously acquired land in the village Kankipadu. There is no suitable Government land available in the village for house site purpose. The land proposed in the instant case which is adjacent to the main village, is found suitable for house sites purpose and hence proposed for acquisition. Hence, the objection is not correct.” When this writ petition came up on earlier occasions, the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition took time for getting instructions. Today, at the hearing, she furnished certain details relating to the availability of lands in Kankipadu village. A perusal of these details shows that against many lands in the remarks column, it is stated that ‘objectionable’. However, no reasons for terming them as ‘objectionable’ are contained in the statement. Even the above reproduced reasons contained in the impugned order do not indicate why the Government land, which is available, is not suitable. The action of acquisition of lands of private citizens against their will calls for observance of transparency and fairness. When the owner of the land pointed out that there is Government land available, it is incumbent upon the respondents to deal with the said objection and give detailed reasons for overruling such an objection. No such reasons are contained in the impugned order. For the above mentioned reasons, order dated 25.01.2008, to the extent it relates to the acquisition of land of the petitioner, is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the objections of the petitioner, with reference to availability of the Government lands, and he shall give detailed reasons for not utilizing any of the Government lands available in the village, by passing a fresh order. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 19.02.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Secretary, Revenue (land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Krishna District at machilipatnam. 3 Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Collector, Krishna District at Vijayawada. 4 Tahsildar, Kankipadu mandal, Krishna District. 5. 2CCs to 6. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}