HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.13739 of 2007 Date : 18-7-2011 Between : Chintapalli Venkata Lakshmi Narasayamma w/o.late Ch.Ramaswami, Sagguru village, Agirpalli Mandal, Krishna District. .. Petitioner And The Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Mahipathi Rao Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings No.Rc.G4.691/2007 dated 19-6-2007. The petitioner is the owner of Ac.5-87 cents in Sy.No.124/1 of Sagguru village, Krishna District. In the said land, coconut and guava trees were planted and by the time of the proposed acquisition, the trees were one year old. Respondent No.1 issued notification dated 23-4-2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), proposing to acquire Ac.3-00 out of the above noted extent of land of the petitioner for providing house sites to the weaker sections. In pursuance of the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner has filed her objections wherein it was inter alia stated that the land was proposed to be acquired with a mala fide intention to cause loss to her family as her son has unsuccessfully contested for the office of Sarpanch and that at the instance of his adversaries the impugned notification was issued. She has further pleaded that her land comprises guava and coconut garden and that previously an extent of Ac.7-23 cents belonging to her family was acquired. She further pleaded that the Government land is available for providing house sites and that the same can be utilized in stead of acquiring the petitioner’s land. These objections were rejected by respondent No.1 under the impugned proceedings. As regards the objection that earlier land admeasuring Ac.7-23 cents belonging to the petitioner’s family was acquired, respondent No.1 stated in his order that the petitioner is a rich ryoth and financially sound and hence the land was proposed for acquisition. To the objection that an extent of Ac.14-80 cents of vacant Government land is available in R.S.No.116 of Sagguru village, which was earlier proposed for assignment but the said proposal was withdrawn, it was observed that the said Government land is classified as “Konda poramboke”, but the beneficiaries are not willing to construct houses as the same has gradient which requires spending of huge money for levelling the same. At the hearing, Sri K.Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land proposed to be acquired is a garden and it is unjust and improper to acquire such garden land. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this court in Damera Seshagiri Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1]. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s family was already subjected to acquisition of land on an earlier occasion and there can be no justification to acquire further land. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have reiterated the reasons given in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact that the land proposed for acquisition is a garden consisting of coconut and guava trees is not in dispute. No doubt, the age of the plants at the time of acquisition appears to be one year. The Division Bench of this court in the Judgment referred supra dealt with more or less a similar situation and observed that even though at the time of acquisition of the garden the plants were two years old, by efflux of time, they have become seven years old at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition. Placing reliance on a Memo of the Government which created a bar on acquisition of coconut garden lands for providing house sites to weaker sections unless a special justification is made out about the inevitability of such acquisition, the Division Bench held that the said Memo was observed more in breach and that the respondents ought to have considered the objections raised by the land owner that alternative lands were available. In my opinion, in the interests of protecting the environment and ecology, it is always desirable to avoid acquisition of gardens for the purpose of providing house sites. It hardly needs any emphasis that by raising gardens, the land owner not only earns his livelihood but the same helps protect the environment and prevent pollution. While providing house sites for a housing scheme intended to uplift the weaker sections is laudable, in order to implement this policy the State and its officers cannot be permitted to indulge in destruction of trees and plants which are essential for maintaining the ecological balance. This appears to be the main objective behind the State Government issuing the Memo which was referred to by the Division Bench of this court in the Judgment referred supra. In the instant case, the respondents have not denied the availability of alternative land belonging to the Government and that at an earlier point of time, the said land was proposed for acquisition. The said proposals were evidently dropped as the beneficiaries were not willing to construct houses on the said land. On the facts of this case, I am of the firm opinion that the respondents ought to go as far as possible to save the garden in question from acquisition for providing house sites. If the extent of Ac.14- 80 cents in R.S.No.116 of Sagguru village is not suitable, the respondents may try for some other land for providing the house sites to the weaker sections. There is one another aspect which requires the attention of this court. As noted above, one of the objections of the petitioner to the proposed acquisition is that her family is subjected to repeated acquisitions. The reason for rejecting this objection is that the petitioner is a rich ryoth and financially sound. While the power of eminent domain is vested with the Government to forcibly take the land of a private person against his will, this power always and at all times, needs to be exercised in a reasonable manner. No doubt, every citizen has a social responsibility to assist the State in its endeavour to uplift the poor and the weaker sections. But at the same time, it will be too unreasonable for the State to insist that a few persons should bear this responsibility by subjecting them to repeated acquisitions purportedly on the ground that they are rich and financially sound. By such repeated acquisitions, a time may come when even those land owners will become small and marginal farmers. Such approach from the Government and its functionaries cannot be appreciated. The social responsibility of bearing the burden by parting with the lands has to be evenly distributed among the land owners in an equitable manner. The lands of the petitioner’s family having already been acquired earlier, I see no justification in acquiring the land of the petitioner again. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order is quashed. Consequently, the land acquisition notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act are quashed. The respondents shall be free to acquire alternative lands in lieu of the petitioner’s land. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel, interim order dated 2-7-2007 is vacated and WPMP No.17244/2007 and WVMP No.1074/2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 18-7-2011 AM [1] 1992(2) APLJ 538