1. The draft notification, dated 18.07.2008 and the draft declaration dated 20.07.2009 issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur, the 1st respondent herein, under the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), are under challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners and possessors of small extents of agricultural wet lands situated in various sub-divisions of Sy.No.342 of Ravipadu Village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District. They are economically backward and some of them belong to Backward Castes, and exclusively dependent on agricultural income by raising paddy in the said lands. The 1st respondent-District Collector issued draft notification vide proceedings in Rc.No.2876/08/G3, dated 18.07.2008, proposing to acquire a total extent of Ac.54.08 cents of land situated in the above said survey number, for Urban Indiramma Housing Scheme. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-Collector issued draft declaration, vide proceedings Rc.2876/08.G3, dated 20.07.2009.

3. Assailing the said draft notification and draft declaration, the present writ petition came to be instituted. Initially, this Court on 15.12.2009 granted status quo, and subsequently, modified the same as an interim direction as prayed for on 28.04.2010 on a vacate application filed by the respondents. In support of the said vacate petition, a counter affidavit deposed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopeta, has been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned proceedings.

4. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Bala Naga Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. Contentions of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners:

a) The impugned proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and violative of the principles of natural justice.

b) The stand taken by the 1st respondent that since the petitioners refused to receive the notices under Section 5-A of the Act, the said notices were affixed on a pole, is false and incorrect and service of notices under Section 5-A cannot be effected in a casual and mechanical manner. The lands proposed for acquisition are double crop wet lands and the action of acquiring the fertile lands for housing purpose is a mala fide and colourable exercise of power.

c) Denial of opportunity under Section 5-A of the Act causes serious civil consequences.

d) Vast extents of government lands are available in the adjoining villages of Narasaraopet Town, viz., Guntagarlapadu and Vallapa Cheruvu, which are at a distance of 5 kms., and there is absolutely no rationale in resorting to the acquisition of double crop wet lands.

e) Acquisition of land for the beneficiaries, who are the residents of other villages, is highly unreasonable. In support of his case, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627 (Suppl. cases).

6. Contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition:

a) The proceedings impugned in the present writ petition are in conformity with the Land Acquisition Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

b) There is neither illegality nor irregularity nor any violation of statutory nor constitutional rights of the petitioners and in the absence of the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in the