IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7449 of 2008 Between: Smt. S.Jaya Lakshmi, W/o.Sri Bhaskar Reddy(Late), R/o. 19-4-34/11-B, STV Nagar, Tirupathi,Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor, 2 The Revenue Divisinal Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.. 3 The Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by calling for the records in Collectors proceedings Roc.No.LASW/1473/2007 and delcare the same as illegal and pass such other order Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed to quash the Notification dated 12.12.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) issued by the 1st respondent-District Collector. The petitioner asserts that she owns an extent of Ac.0.66 cents of land in S.No.78/3 situated in Mangalam village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, which is the ancestral property of her late husband S.Bhaskar Reddy, and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of it. Now, her grievance is that though huge extent of Government land is available in various survey numbers for acquisition, the 1st respondent-District Collector issued the impugned Notification proposing to acquire Ac.63.60 cents of land including the petitioner’s land for the purpose of providing house- sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma Housing Scheme. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that most of the land under acquisition belongs to small farmers and the Government issued prior instructions not to acquire the lands of small farmers. His further contention is that there are alternative lands and when such alternative Government lands are very much available, there is no necessity for the Land Acquisition Officer to acquire the lands in question. Here, it is to be noticed that the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is conferred with the power of holding an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5(A) of the Act, and inasmuch as such enquiry is yet to be conducted by him, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file all his tenable objections before the 2nd respondent, who is seized of the matter, and the 2nd respondent, on receipt of such objections, shall, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, submit his remarks to the 1st respondent-District Collector enabling him to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ 21.04.2008 Note: Furnish copy in one week B/o bcj