JUDGMENT : 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. 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. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had argued the matter at length, after obtaining the instructions, at the stage of admission. It is stated that the 3rd respondent proceeded with the matter objectively, in conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, as well as dealing with the various objections raised by the petitioner. It is stated that when the land is needed for a public purpose, the individual interests have to give way, and that the petitioner can work out her remedies for payment of adequate compensation. 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. 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. Whatever may be the propriety in signing the proformas or proposals relating to notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, the order to be passed under Section 5-A of the Act is supposed to be the one of the District Collector, himself. Even as regards the enquiry under Section 5-A, the 3rd respondent has reduced his role to that of almost a non-entity. A standard order appears to have been fed into computer. It has a preamble, reflecting that the 3rd respondent has called for remarks of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the objections raised by the effected party. This is followed by reproduction of objections of the land owner and the remarks of the Revenue Divisional Officer, in a tabular form. It has a preamble, reflecting that the 3rd respondent has called for remarks of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the objections raised by the effected party. This is followed by reproduction of objections of the land owner and the remarks of the Revenue Divisional Officer, in a tabular form. The actual application of the mind of the 3rd respondent is restricted to a sentence, which reads: “After considering the objections filed by the land owners and remarks offered by the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada on the objections of the landowner, it is construed that there are no valid grounds in the objections. The objections are devoid of merit and hence rejected.” This court is really tired of reading such cyclostyled or computer fed orders. In fact, the 3rd respondent was summoned to the court, in another case, after noticing the number of acquisitions and gravity of the matter. Large number of owners of agricultural lands, were driven to the court. It is not known as to how many are suffering silently. The manner in which the objections raised by the petitioner were dealt is really shocking The petitioner stated in her representation about the allotment of house sites, in favour of 126 beneficiaries and non-construction of a single house thereon. The objection is as under: “The District Collector has to make enquiries with regard to the properties which are vacant. In Polekurru village previously the Government has allotted sites after getting lay out in R.S.No.120 of Polekurru village. Under the said lay out No.120 house sites have been allotted. In fact no person constructed the house in the said lay out and the same is fully vacant and available for allotment of house sites. As such the allotment of the sites in the L.P. relating to 120 of Polekurru village can be cancelled by government. In fact several representations are made for cancellation of the pattas by the local public as the beneficiaries have not occupied the property at any point of time. If the said property is allotted to these beneficiaries, there will not be any need to acquire the land belonging to the real owner.” The remarks offered by the Revenue Divisional Officer for the said objection, read as under: “No government land available in R.S.No.120 as stated by the petitioner. It is not Government land. If the said property is allotted to these beneficiaries, there will not be any need to acquire the land belonging to the real owner.” The remarks offered by the Revenue Divisional Officer for the said objection, read as under: “No government land available in R.S.No.120 as stated by the petitioner. It is not Government land. Hence, distribution of pattas to beneficiaries earlier does not arise (in R.S.No.120)” The District Collector blindly accepted this. Another objection raised by the petitioner was that vast extent of Grama Kantam land is in the control of big landlords, and the objection reads as under: “There is vast extent of Grama Kantam land in the village which is in the control of big land lords. As per the recent orders no person is entitled to retain an extent more than Ac.0-2 cents of Gramakantam vacant sit. Therefore, the present acquisition notification is not valid.” Remarks of the 4th respondent are as under: “In R.S.No.229/3, Ac.0-30 cents land classified a G.P. village site available for providing house sits in Indiramma Phase III Programme. In addition to that petitioner land is proposed for acquisition to the beneficiaries for house sites.” There cannot be any better instance of arbitrary exercise of power, be it by the 4th respondent, or the 3rd respondent than this. The powers of eminent domain under the Act, were grossly misused by both of them. In their purported attempt to implement the policy of the government, respondents 3 and 4 failed to protect the interests of the innocent citizens, even though adequate facts were pleaded. The petitioner states that the cost of the proposed land would be around Rs.40 lakhs per acre. The 4th respondent took the view that according to the Basic Value Register, the cost of the land proposed to be acquired would be Rs.270/- per sq. yard, which comes to around Rs.13 lakhs per acre. Together with solatium and other benefits, it would be almost Rs.20 lakhs per acre. When so much of public money is being spent, it was expected of respondents 3 and 4, to put the available government land to use. The comments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that extraneous factors weighed in identifying the lands of innocent farmers, cannot be brushed aside. The facts of the present case add strength to the same. The comments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that extraneous factors weighed in identifying the lands of innocent farmers, cannot be brushed aside. The facts of the present case add strength to the same. It is difficult to approve the manner in which respondents 3 and 4 have exercised their power, or the manner in which the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted. On account of their arbitrary, illegal and capricious exercise of powers, not only the fertile land of the petitioner is sought to be acquired, but also the public funds are likely to be vested, even when government lands are available, as per the admission of respondents 3 and 4 themselves. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the Notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, as well as the order dated 22.8.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent, are set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall be entitled to initiate proceedings against the lands of the petitioner, only after the available government land is put to use and any genuine beneficiaries are left out. There shall be no order as to costs.