IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Writ Petition No.18914 of 2002 Between: G.Sudershan Naidu, S/o.Ramanadham Naidu, Aged 36 years, R/o. Kobaka Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District. …Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor District And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.18914 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly owner of agricultural wet land admeasuring Acs.5.21 cents comprised in Survey No.162/4 etc., situated at Kobaka Village of Yerpedu Mandal in Chittoor District. First respondent issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’, for brevity) (published in Gazette dated 08.03.2002), proposing to acquire land to the extent of Acs.0.09 cents in Survey No.162-6B and Acs.0.08 cents in Survey No.163-1A2 belonging to petitioner for public purpose, namely, for formation of road from Kobaka village to lands acquired for Dalits of village. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District – second respondent herein, was authorized to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Second respondent issued notice in Form-3 for conducting enquiry on 03.08.2002 under Section 5-A of the Act. At that stage, alleging that respondents commenced work of formation of road without completing other formalities and apprehending threat of dispossession, petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents in taking steps to acquire petitioner’s land admeasuring Acs.0.17 cents, as illegal and arbitrary. He contends that acquisition itself is improper, as there are no residential houses in the land allegedly acquired for Dalits of Kobaka village and therefore, provision of road is not necessary. He also contends that if Acs.0.17 cents of land as proposed is acquired, it would render remaining land useless, as the acquired portion would virtually divide the land, causing hardship and prejudice to him. The Mandal Revenue Officer (now Tahsildar), Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District filed counter affidavit. The allegation with regard to proposal for acquiring land issued in notification under Section 4(1) and issue of notice in Form-3 for conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act are not denied. It is, however, stated that even before second respondent could conduct enquiry and submit report, petitioner filed writ petition for obtaining interim directions. All the proceedings are stalled because of this. It is also the case of respondents that petitioner is a wealthy Pattadar having more than Acs.14.00 cents of land and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused, if a meager extent of Acs.0.17 cents belonging to petitioner is acquired for providing approach road to S.C. Colony. It is also stated that petitioner appeared before second respondent and filed objections, which are under consideration. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (LA). Admittedly, second respondent did not complete enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is also disputed that, after receiving notice from second respondent, petitioner filed objections raising all pleas, which were raised before this Court. That being the case, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on contentions raised by petitioner. However, be it observed that if acquisition of land to the extent of Acs.0.17 cents, as proposed, results in vertically dividing the land of petitioner admeasuring Acs.5.21 cents, concerned authorities shall consider the possibility of acquiring Acs.0.17 cents without causing much harm to petitioner’s land. It shall, however, be open to petitioner to appear before second respondent and submit additional objections and place an alternate proposal in such a manner that it does not, in any manner, prevent him from carrying on agricultural operations. If, for any reason, proposal of petitioner cannot be accepted, second respondent shall submit a report to District Collector, Chittoor District, giving reasons therefor. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) October 07, 2009 Bvv