IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1561 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/09/2008 in WP NO : 18991 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Marise Somanna Dora, s/o Tammaiah, 2 Pilli Nooka Raju, s/o P.Appanna, 3 Pilli Seetamma @ Sita, w/o P.Nooka Raju, 4 Pilli Krishna, s/o P.Nooka Raju, 5 Vasamsetty Appala Narsamma, w/o Govindu, 6 Pilli Venkataramana, s/o Nooka Raju, 7 Pilli Narasimha Raju @ Narasimha Murthy, s/o Nooka Raju, 8 Pilli Veera Babu, s/o Nooka Raju, 9 Pilli Appa Rao, s/o Nooka Raju, r/o Near Panchayat Office, Sarpavaram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by a common order passed in W.P.Nos. 18787 of 2007 and batch dated 4-9-2008, this appeal has been filed against the judgment delivered in W.P.No. 18991 of 2007. We have heard the learned Advocates and have also perused the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. It is the case of the appellants that due opportunity to file their objections had not been given. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants that the respondent authorities were requested to grant some time, as some litigation was pending and, therefore, the appellants did not file their objections and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been made. It is admitted that requisite notices were given to the appellants and the appellants preferred not to file any objection. It has been submitted at the time of hearing of this appeal that there are other Government lands available which could have been acquired by the respondents- Government authorities so as to provide house sites to other needy persons. The aforestated submission, in our opinion, is not correct for the reason that a counter-affidavit had been filed before the learned single Judge wherein it has been clearly stated that there was no Government land available in the vicinity which is under acquisition. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, no legal rights of the appellants have been violated by any of the respondents and, therefore, we see no substance in the appeal The appeal therefore stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th November, 2008. GRR