THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1711 of 2008 Date: 01.02.2008 Between: Burla Siva Prasad … Petitioner AND Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary – Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1711 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 07.01.2008 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he rejected the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to invalidate declaration dated 21.01.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Act. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. An extent of Ac.1.93 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.572- B of Bandar East, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District, belonging to the petitioner is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma Scheme under notification dated 24.05.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. In response to the notice issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed his objections. His only objection filed before respondent No.3 was that he was a small farmer and that he has already plowed his land for raising paddy seed beds. Similar objections were raised by other land owners, whose lands were also proposed to be acquired under the said notification. Respondent No.3, after completion of enquiry, submitted his remarks to respondent No.2. While dealing with the objections filed by the petitioner and other similarly placed land owners, respondent No.3 in his remarks, which are reproduced by respondent No.2 in the impugned order, stated as under: “Though all the farmers are small and marginal farmers their lands are falling within the alignment proposed for acquisition which is intended for providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma. It is not correct to say that the land was plowed for raising seed beds, as it is not fit for raising seed beds. As the lands are existing middle of the alignment of the land proposed for acquisition it can be withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings. Hence, the objection petitions filed by the land owners and their representatives can not be considered.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of respondent No.3 that he found the objection of the petitioner that the land was plowed for raising seed beds as incorrect on the ground that the same was not fit for raising seed beds is not sustainable. He drew my attention to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act in which all the lands proposed to be acquired were shown as cultivable. On this basis he argued that respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not apply their mind. Though I find discrepancy in description of nature of land between the remarks of respondent No.3 and Section 6 declaration, I am not inclined to invalidate the acquisition proceedings merely on this ground, because, the entire reasoning given by respondent Nos.2 and 3 as a whole is required to be considered while examining the sustainability or otherwise of the proceedings. Apart from saying that the land is not fit for raising seed beds, respondent No.3 has found that the lands belonging to the petitioner and other similarly placed persons proposed to be acquired fall in the midst of the larger extent of area proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to poorer sections. It cannot be denied that providing shelter to poorer sections of the society is an avowed social cause, which a welfare State is committed to. Therefore, in the fulfillment of such a cause, if the State acquires lands of private parties, it may leave the sense of deprivation in the minds of the owners of the land, but, they have to bear this social responsibility in order to help the house less persons to have shelter of their own. Viewed from this perspective, even if the respondents have found that the proposed land was fit for raising seed beds, in my considered view, that would not have made any difference in the ultimate decision making of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to go ahead with the acquisition proceedings, because even such a land can be used for house sites. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2114 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.02.2008 ES