THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos : 18787, 18814, 18947 & 18991 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: The District Collector, East Godavari, 2nd respondent herein, issued a notiﬁcation, dated 01.08.2007, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire Acs.55.00 of land in Sarpavaram Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, for providing house sites to weaker sections. The lands of the petitioners were also notiﬁed. They ﬁled these writ petitions, challenging the notiﬁcation, insofar as it relates to their lands. The petitioners contend that they are small farmers and if the acquisition is proceeded with, they will be deprived of their meager livelihood. Certain other contentions are also urged. During the pendency of the writ petitions, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, in relation to the said notiﬁcation, was conducted and ultimately, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.02.2008. In view of this development, the petitioners contend that though a notice was got issued on their behalf, requesting the District Collector, not to proceed with the acquisition, in view of the pendency of the writ petitions, he had issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Heard Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The 2nd respondent issued the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, expressing his intention to acquire the land, for the purpose of providing house sites. As required under Section 5- A of the Act, he issued notices to the aﬀected parties, including the petitioners. The petitioners did not choose to avail the opportunity of submitting their explanations in response to the notices, under Section 5-A of the Act and have approached this Court by ﬁling these writ petitions. The other persons, whose lands were also notiﬁed, have submitted their explanations raising several objections. A detailed order was passed by the 2nd respondent, dealing with each and every objection raised by the persons, who submitted their explanations. The petitioners did not avail the opportunity of submitting the explanations under Section 5-A of the Act. They are not able to point out any procedural or substantive defect in the notification. Even assuming that some of the petitioners are small farmers, the impugned proceedings cannot be set aside, having regard to the fact that a large extent of land is acquired and small bits cannot be separated, if they are in between. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 04.09.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos : 18787, 18814, 18947 & 18991 of 2007 Date: 04.09.2008 JSU