LAWS(APH)-2010-6-17

KOTHAPALLI SUBRAMANYA SASTRY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On June 07, 2010
KOTHAPALLI SUBRAHMANYA SASTRY Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are owners of land in survey No. 95 of Seepudi Village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. The District Collector, Krishna, the 2nd respondent herein, published a notification, dated 03.06.2006, proposing to acquire Ac. 1.48 cents of land, for providing house sites to weaker sections. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was dispensed with. The petitioners filed W.P. No. 11989 of 2006, challenging the notification. The writ petition was disposed of, on 15.09.2006, directing that, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held. Enquiry was conducted, on 19.08.2006. It is stated that the decision of enquiry taken by the 2nd respondent was assailed by the petitioners by filing W.P. No. 1897 of 2006. The writ petition was disposed of on 15.09.2006, directing that the objections that may be submitted by the petitioners shall be taken into account and the decision taken by the 2nd respondent under Section 5-A of the Act shall be communicated to the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners submitted detailed representations, raising several objections. The Land Acquisition Officer, the 3rd respondent herein, enquired into the same and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent. The latter, in turn, passed orders, dated 24.01.2007, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that several important contentions, such as, the availability of Government lands in the village; non-suitability of the lands of the petitioners, for house sites; and the inclusion of ineligible persons in the list of beneficiaries, were not considered by the respondents.

(3.) On behalf of respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that, each and every objection raised by the petitioners was considered in detail, and a just and proper conclusion was arrived at. It is also pleaded that the petitioners are creating hurdles for acquisition, on one pretext, or the other.