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 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7461 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri C.Parasuram S/o. Sri C.Kesavulu R/o. Mangalam (V), Tirupathi Urban (M), Chittoor District. 2 Sri C.Kesavulu S/o. Sri Papaiah Pillai R/o. Mangalam (V), Tirupathi Urban (M), Chittoor District. 3 Smt C.Vanamma W/o. Papaiah Pillai R/o. Mangalam (V), Tirupathi Urban (M), Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. 3 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 C.Munamma W/o. Raghu R/o. Mangalam (V), Tirupathi Urban (M), Chittoor Dist. are Rep. by GPA Holder Sri J.Shantilal Jain, S/o. Jugaraj Jain, R/o. H.No. 149, Porla Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dsitrict. 5 I.Parandama Pillai R/o. Mangalam (V), Tirupathi Urban (M), Chittoor Dist. are Rep. by GPA Holder Sri J.Shantilal Jain, S/o. Jugaraj Jain, R/o. H.No. 149, Porla Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dsitrict. 6 C.Tirumala Pillai R/o. Mangalam (V), Tirupathi Urban (M), Chittoor Dist. are Rep. by GPA Holder Sri J.Shantilal Jain, S/o. Jugaraj Jain, R/o. H.No. 149, Porla Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dsitrict. .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No. 53/2D situated at Mangalam Revenue Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor district as illegal, unjustice arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice malafide and violative of Art.300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently the respondents be directed not to dispossess ua from the land to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No. 53/2D situatedat Mangalam Revenue Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chioottr District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing a Notification dated 12.12.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) proposing to acquire the petitioners’ land of an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in S.No.53/2D situated in Mangalam Revenue village, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question. The petitioners asserts that they own an extent of Ac.2.50 cents of land in S.No.53/2D situated in Mangalam Revenue village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, which is the ancestral property of the father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and all the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of it. Now, their grievance is that though huge extent of Government land is available in various survey numbers for acquisition, the 3rd respondent-District Collector issued the impugned Notification proposing to acquire Ac.63.60 cents of land including the petitioners’ 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 petitioners 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 land 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 petitioners to file all their 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 petitioners of being heard, submit his remarks to the 3rd 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