HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8441 of 2007 29.01.2008 Between: K.Bathi Reddy and others … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Chittoor and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8441 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notification, dated 08.03.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. At the hearing, Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the issue relating to non-conversion of the agricultural land for being used for non-agricultural purposes is covered by judgment, dated 28.12.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.18881 of 2006 and batch, wherein a similar contention was repelled. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that before seeking to acquire the lands, it is incumbent upon the respondents to identify the villagers and the beneficiaries as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 17.01.2007. He also submitted that the lands proposed to be acquired are agricultural lands, wherein crops are being raised and that they are not suitable for house sites. I have not felt persuaded to accept these contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage for the reason that the Act provides for appropriate opportunity by way of filing objections under Section 5A of the Act and this is what precisely is provided in the impugned notification, wherein, as noted above, objections are called for against the proposed acquisition. Whether the alleged directions contained in G.O.Ms.No.19, dated 17.01.2007 are violated by the respondents, and what will be the legal consequences of such violation, are issues which may be germane for consideration after completion of enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the event an adverse order is passed by the Collector on completion of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, it is always open to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy to question such an order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is premature and deserves to be dismissed. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as they were pursuing the present writ petition bona fide, they could not file their objections in the enquiry initiated under Section 5A of the Act. In view of this submission, the petitioners are permitted to file their objections within three weeks from today. It is made clear that they are entitled to raise all the objections, which are legally permissible including the objections, which are raised before this Court as noted supra. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to dispose of the objections after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 23.04.2007 is vacated and WPMP.No.10837 of 2007 is dismissed. WVMP.No.2672 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JANUARY, 2008. kvni