1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the draft notifications vide Rc.G2/651/2006, Rc.G2/652/2006, Rc.G2/655/2006 dated 28.02.2006 and Rc.G2/1034/2006 dated 03.03.2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the draft declaration vide Rc.G2/652/2006, Rc.G2/655/2006, Rc.G2/1034/2006 dated 21.04.2006 and Rc.G2/651/2006 dated 02.05.2006 issued by the District Collector, Nellore, first respondent herein for the purpose of acquiring the lands of the petitioners, admeasuring Acs.11-28 cents situated in Sy.Nos.13 to 20, 24 to 28, 29 and 32 of Akkampeta Village and Ac.55-33 cents situated in Sy.Nos.289 to 293 of Kadaluru village, Tada Mandal, Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act 1894).

2. The District Collector, Nellore/the first respondent herein pressed into service the provisions of the Act and issued the above mentioned draft notifications and draft declarations for the purpose of acquiring the above referred lands of the petitioners for establishment of industrial park. The said proceedings are being assailed in the present writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Act.

3. This Court, while issuing Rule Nisi on 18.07.2006, granted interim stay. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned proceedings.

4. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent/APIIC apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. Submissions/contentions of Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners:-

1. The authorities did not conduct enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

2. Petitioners are small and marginal farmers and alternative lands are available in the village and except the houses of the petitioners the entire lands in the village are proposed for acquisition.

3. The authorities did not publish the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in the locality and also failed to indicate the public purpose clearly in the notification.

4. There is a Bird Sanctuary in Pulicot Lake nearby as such the proposed activity is impermissible.

5. In support of his contentions/submissions the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the Judgments of the Honble Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED v. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND OTHERS (2005) 7 SCC 627), USHA STUD AND AGRICULTURAL LFARMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ((2013) 4 SCC 210), KAMAL TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS MANAV INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY LIMITED v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS ((2012) 2 SCC 25) , RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRWAT v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ((2012) 1 SCC 792), WOMEN EDUCATION TRUST AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (2013) 8 SCC 99) and PADMA SUNDARA RAO (DEAD) AND OTHERS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU. AND OTHERS (2002) 3 SCC 533).

6. Submissions/contentions of the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent:-

1. Respondents are proceeding strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules farmed thereunder and absolutely there is neither illegality nor irregularity nor any arbitrariness in their action and in the absence of the same, the impugned proceedings cannot be interdicted.

2. The authorities strictly adhered to the provisions of Section 5-A the Act and held enquiry as per Section 5-A and disposed of the objections.

3. The authorities specifically and clearly indicated the public purpose for establishment of industrial park as such