M.Seetharama Murti, J. - (1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner requesting to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the notification, dated 23.05.2006, in Ref.no.G2/2452/2006, issued by the 1st respondent-District Collector and the consequential proceedings, dated 19.11.2006, in the said reference number, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and against the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, & the administrative instructions issued under the said Act and consequently set aside the same.
(2.) I have heard the submissions of Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; and of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition (AP) appearing for the respondents 1 & 2. I have perused the material record.
(3.) The case of the petitioners is this: 'They are residents of C.Rayavaram Colony. They are having lands respectively of the extents, viz., Ac.2.00 cents, Ac.1.50 cents and Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.no.51/1 of the said village of Eleswaram Mandal. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ('the Act', for brevity) was issued by the 1st respondent for the proposed acquisition of the lands of the petitioners. The said notification was published, on 24.05.2006, in the District Extraordinary Gazette no.257/2006. The 1st respondent, having invoked Section 17-A of the Act dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, appointed the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer to perform his functions. Later on, an errata/correction vide reference no.G2/2452/06, dated 19.11.2006, was issued clarifying the names of the owners and the extents insofar as the land in Sy.no.51/1 and the extent insofar the land in Sy.no.51/2. Though an enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with, a notice in Form 3 was issued calling the petitioners to attend an enquiry to be held under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners filed their objections, on 18.12.2006, requesting to drop the acquisition proceedings and stating that they are small farmers; they solely depend on the income derived from their lands; there are other alternative lands of rich landlords available for acquisition. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed orders, dated 21.01.2007, rejecting the objections and stating that the acquisition of the lands is inevitable as there are no other lands available for being provided as house sites to the beneficiaries. There is an adjacent land of an extent of Ac.3.50 cents of Palivela Surya Rao in Sy.no.44/1. There are also lands of rich landlords and Government Poramboke lands. The said aspects were not considered. The objections were not considered in true spirit and the above said orders were passed mechanically. No land of a small farmer, who possessed land of an extent less than Ac.2.00 cents and who has no other land for the livelihood of his family shall be acquired. Each of the petitioners is having a small extent of land; and, the petitioners are having large families consisting of unmarried daughters; and, they are solely depending upon cultivation of their respective small extents of lands. If the lands of the petitioners are acquired, they will become destitute. The acquisition of lands of the petitioners by the respondents is an unreasonable exercise of statutory power. Lands of small farmers cannot be acquired as per the instructions in the Government Memo no.1287/C1/74-2, dated 31.05.1974, as the Government instructed the Collectors not to acquire the lands of small farmers. The said instructions, which have force of law, are binding on the 1st respondent. The proceedings which were issued contrary to the Government instructions are liable to be quashed. The adjacent lands of rich landlords remained untouched as they are having political affiliations. The substance of the publication under Section 4(1) of the Act is not published in the locality as envisaged under law. Government having noticed that the lands are being acquired even in cases, where Government land is available for provision as house sites, issued Memo no.1243/C1/77-4, dated 06.04.1977, stating that the acquisition of private lands should be discouraged when Government land, by spending some amount on levelling, can be made available for use as house sites, after making it fit for such use. The Collectors were instructed to first make use of the Government lands before acquisition of private sites for allotment as house sites. As per Government Memo no.7343/C1-76-4, dated 27.12.1976, the Collectors are requested not to acquire lands of Harizans for the purpose of providing house sites unless, it is inevitable; and, even in such cases, the Collectors are required to seek permission of the Government. The respondents neglected to follow the instructions of the Government, which are binding. No prior permission of the Government was obtained by the respondents. Hence, the impugned proceedings being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper & against law are vitiated. Hence, the writ petition is filed.';