HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34017 of 2011 Date: 26.12.2011 Between: Syed Arif Pasha ..... Petitioner And: The State of A.P., reptd by District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa And another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Srinath Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.G-1/2569/2010, dated 26.09.2011, of the District Collector, Y.S.R.District, Kadapa, to the extent it relates to D.Nos.6/23, 49/26-1, 25 and 49/24 of Chemmumiyapet Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR District. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above- mentioned properties. Notification, dated 15.07.2011, was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire various properties including that of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of a double lane bridge between old bus-stand and Ravindra Nagar over Buggavanka. Form-3 notice, dated 29.07.2011, was issued to the petitioner, wherein objections were invited besides informing him that if any objections are received, the same will be enquired into on 30.08.2011 at 2 pm., at the office of respondent No.2. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed his objections on 13.08.2011. On considering the said objections, the District Collector vide his proceedings, dated 26.09.2011, rejected the same along with the objections raised by other land owners. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the following submissions: - (i) that there is no sanction from the State Government for acquiring the property for construction of an approach road and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the District Collector are without power or authority; (ii) that the petitioner was not supplied with a map even though a specific request was made and the same was raised in his objections; and (iii) that an opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act. Resisting the above submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, representing the respondents, stated that in view of Section 4(1) of the Act, which empowers the District Collector to initiate proceedings without prior sanction of the State Government, no separate sanction is required for notifying the lands for acquisition. She further stated that the petitioner’s objections relating to supply of map was considered by the District Collector in the impugned order and that the petitioner has not availed the opportunity of personal hearing as he was not present on 30.08.2011- the date fixed for holding enquiry. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, under Section 4(1) of the Act, whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the District Collector that the land in any locality is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published proposing acquisition of the property. The power to issue such notification was conferred on the District Collector by the A.P. Amendment Act XXII of 1976, with effect from 12.09.1975. In view of this specific power conferred on the District Collector, which is concurrent with that of the State Government, no separate sanction by the Government is required for acquiring the land which is needed for a public purpose. Therefore, the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. With regard to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-supply of map, the petitioner in his objections has stated that the map relating to the proposed width of the over bridge and the affected properties was neither handed over to him in spite of his request nor was the same placed in the office of the Joint Collector. In the impugned order, the District Collector has considered this objection and extracted the specific remarks of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, which are as under: - “The following are the details for the road proposed on R.V.Nagar Site:- (1) Length of approach road – 120 Mts or 394 Ft. (2) Average width of existing road – 12 Mts or 39 Ft. (3) Proposed width of approach road (including service road of 4.5 Mts on either side) -21 Mts or 69 Ft. The houses bearing D.Nos.6//23, 49/26-1, 49/25 and 49/24 come within the approach road. It is necessary to acquire the land as proposed. The joint inspection conducted by the then R.D.O., Kadapa, along with all concerned parties and officials and discussed with the detailed map showing the proposed acquisition of land prepared by the revenue surveyor.” The District Collector has accepted these remarks and rejected the petitioner’s objections. Even though technically speaking the petitioner was not provided with the map, he has not disputed the contents of the specific remarks of the Executive Engineer in this Writ Petition. The said remarks had furnished the details of the existing width and proposed width of the approach road and the fact that the petitioner’s properties come within the approach road. In my opinion, mere non-supply of map would not vitiate the decision making process so long as no prejudice is caused to the party. If the petitioner felt that his properties do not fall within the range of the proposed approach road, he is expected to dispute the contents of the remarks of the Executive Engineer. In the face of these facts, the proposed acquisition cannot be interfered with only on the ground of non-supply of the map to the petitioner. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as rightly submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Form-3 notice has fixed 30.08.2011 at 2 pm as the date of enquiry. The petitioner has not pleaded that he has attended the office of respondent No.2 and that no enquiry was held on that date. If the petitioner was interested in the enquiry, he ought to have attended the office of respondent No.2 on that date. Evidently, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing offered in the notice received by him. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.42327 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th December 2011 DR