HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15961 of 2008 Date : 04.08.2011 Between : Karri Tarunakara Reddy. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, East Godavari District & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15961 of 2008 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the notification in Ref.G3/1978/2008, dated 21.04.2008, issued by the 1st respondent, notifying an extent of 2 acres of land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No.57 of Gangampalem village of Gokavaram Mandal in East Godavari District, for acquisition, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. The impugned notification is issued without invoking urgency clause. In the 5-A inquiry, the petitioner has participated and has raised objections stating that the aforesaid land is not suitable for house sites and that there are Government lands available in Sy.Nos.110/1, 110/2 and 112/2 and the land of the petitioner is situated in a low-lying area. The Collector and District Magistrate has considered the objections raised by the petitioner and over-ruled the said objections, and by an order, dated 30.06.2008, issued in Proceedings Ref.G3/1978/2008, ordered to take further steps under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this writ petition, it is to be noticed that the order, dated 30.06.2008, is not at all questioned. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is again the case of the petitioner that there are Government lands available, but inspite of the same, his land is acquired and it is also not contiguous to the village and is not suitable for house sites, so as to acquire the same for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. A perusal of the order, dated 30.06.2008, issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, reveals that the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected by recording valid reasons. The objections filed are dealt with as under : “Objection : The petitioner’s contents that earlier the lands in S.Nos.110/1 and 2 are surveyed for house sites and proposal sent for S.No.57 with political intention. Remarks : The contention of the petitioner is not correct that while submitting proposals several lands inspected for suitability and as such the S.No.110 also inspected. As the land in S.No.57 found suitable for providing house sites to the poor under Indiramma Programme the land was selected and proposed, moreover the land owner is a big farmer having Ac.13.42 cts. There is no any political involvement in selecting the land as contended by the petitioner. Objection : The petitioners contend that he raised Eucalyptus trees in the proposed land and invested up to Rs.1.00 Lakh and if the land is acquired his livelihood will be affected. Remarks : That there are Eucalyptus plants existing in the proposed land and the valuation will be done by the concerned Department and compensation will be paid. The livelihood will not be affect as the land owner is a big farmer. Objection : The petitioners contends that the proposed land was not inspected by any officer and surveyed so far, that the land is not fit for house sites as it is low level land. Remarks : That the contents raised by the petitioners are not correct. The land was inspected and proposed for acquisition as per its suitability. The land is high in level and requires no leveling and quite suitable for house sites. Objection : The petitioners contends that there are D patta lands and suitable lands available in S.No.110/1, 110/2 and 112/2 and requested to drop his land from acquisition as it is in far of distance. Remarks : That there are no Government vacant lands available in the village. The proposed land is more accessible, very adjacent to the village and quite suitable for house sites. Objection : The petitioners contends that if the land in Sy.No.57 acquired and provided pattas the adjacent land will be damaged due to the waste usage water of the inhabitants and the in habitants may spill the adjacent land by using as toilets and requested to drop the acquisition. Remarks : That necessary alternative will be made while constructing houses. As there are no other suitable lands available in the vicinity the proposed acquisition is inevitable.” Although it is the case of the petitioner that the land is not suitable for house sites, the same has already been considered and over-ruled by the District Collector, by observing that the land is high in level and it requires no levelling and is quite suitable for house sites. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that Government lands are available in Sy.Nos.110/1, 110/2 and 112/2, but the said lands, even according to the petitioner, are the lands covered by D-Form pattas, by which, assignments are made to the landless poor persons. When D-Form pattas are given by way of assignments, the lands are no more Government lands, so as to grant house site pattas to the weaker sections. In view of the reasons recorded in the proceedings of the Collector, dated 30.06.2008, and as no other ground is raised in the writ petition for attacking the acquisition, I do not find any ground to interfere in the acquisition proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th August 2011 ajr