VANIMISETTI VENKATESWARAMMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is owner of an extent of Ac. 1-66 cents of wet land, in Sy. No. 228/2 of Polekurru Village of Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. The District Collector, East Godavari, the 3rd respondent herein, published a Notification dated 14. 3. 2008, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act"), proposing to acquire the said land, for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. During the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner raised several objections. Through the order dated 22. 8. 2008, the 3rd respondent rejected the objections. Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the Act, was published on 8. 9. 2008. The petitioner challenges the notification issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 4 (1), as well as the order of rejection, dated 23. 8. 2008.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that vast extents of Government land is available in the village, for providing house sites, and still the fertile agricultural land owned by the petitioner is sought to be acquired. It is stated that the various objections, including the one, to the effect that there is Government land in Sy. No. 120 of the village, were brushed aside on irrelevant reasons. He submits that except putting a seal of approval on the remarks offered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, the 4th respondent herein, the 1st respondent did not do anything, independently. Certain other grounds are also urged.

(3.) THE 3rd respondent issued a draft notification on 14. 3. 2008 and appointed the 4th respondent as Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner was served with a notice, under Section 5-A of the Act. On receipt of the same, she submitted a detailed representation with various objections for the acquisition. They ranged from method of publication of notification, to the availability of Government land, non-construction of houses by the beneficiaries over the plots, which were already allotted, cost of the land proposed to be acquired, etc. This Court has come across in dozens of matters from East Godavari District, wherein, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was reduced into an empty formality. Spate of notifications under the Act were issued and obviously under the pressure of work or lack of experience, the 3rd respondent virtually permitted all his powers to be exercised by his subordinates, whether Tahsildars or Revenue Divisional Officers. The acquisitions, in respect of villages in Tallarevu Mandal and Kakinada Revenue Division, themselves are quite considerable. Taking advantage of the dependence of the 3rd respondent on them, the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer have either initiated, or played very active role, be it in identifying the lands for acquisition,or adding finality to that. The role of the 3rd respondent was virtually restricted to signing the prepared proformas.