GUMMULURI VENKATARAMANAMMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of Ac. 1-14 cents of wet land in various sub-divisions of Sy. No. 6 of Sunkarapalem village of Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari district. The District Collector, East Godavari, the 1st 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 providing house sites under a government sponsored scheme. Enquiry under section 5-A of the Act was conducted. Petitioner submitted objections, along with her sons and daughters. It was pleaded that the petitioner is a small farmer and is dependant on the income derived upon the wet land, which is proposed to be acquired. A list of 25 items of properties, which are on either side of the road in the village, and in between the existing habitation and the land proposed to be acquired, was furnished, stating that they are suitable for house sites. The petitioner also stated that vast extents of government land in the same village, in different survey numbers, is available, and she furnished particulars of survey numbers and extents. The 1st respondent, thereupon, referred the objections raised by the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Tallarevu Mandal, for a report. On the strength of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the Revenue Divisional officer, Kakinada, the 2nd respondent herein, submitted his remarks. The 1st respondent accepted the remarks of the 2nd respondent, and passed an order, dated 22. 8. 2008, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. The order passed by the 1st respondent is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) SRI Bhaskar Poluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent is incorrect. It is pleaded that the power to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A, is conferred upon the authority competent to acquire the land, whereas, for all practical purposes, the collector delegated his powers to the Tahsildar, and thereafter to the Revenue divisional Officer. It is also stated that except extracting the remarks offered by the Revenue Divisional Officer and adding a sentence that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is accepted, the District Collector did not undertake any exercise. He further submits that when the petitioner had submitted the particulars of about 70 to 80 acres of land, whether belonging to government or others, the respondents did not find a meager one acre, for providing house sites, and none of the reasons mentioned in the report are correct.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader for Land Acquisition obtained instructions, at the stage of admission. It is stated that the land of the petitioner had to be acquired, since no other alternative land was found suitable. It is stated that the 1st respondent examined the matter, dispassionately, and arrived at a proper conclusion.