Judgment : 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. 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. 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. 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. The extent proposed to be acquired from the petitioner is Ac.1-14 cents. It is an agricultural land, wherein paddy or other wet crops are grown. East and West Godavari Districts of State of Andhra Pradesh are known as Rice Bowl of the State. Obviously, with a view to ensure that agricultural lands are not indiscriminately put to other use and to ensure food security, one after the other legislations have been brought about. Administrative instructions have been issued, from time to time, directing that fertile agricultural lands and the extents, owned by small farmers, must be excluded from acquisition, as far as possible. The District Administration of East Godavari appears to have turned a deaf ear for such policies. It was also pleaded across the bar that certain officers in the Revenue Department, particularly those in the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer, have treated the Land Acquisition Act as a powerful ploy, to twist the arms of small farmers. It is not of without basis that allegations were made against one such officer that he used to identify very fertile land with lush green crops during morning walk and used to initiate land acquisition proceedings against such lands, only to be dropped once the settlement is arrived at. If one superimposes the facts of the case with the situation mentioned above, there does not appear to be much variation. The necessity to provide house sites to the poor is not something, which has developed overnight. If one superimposes the facts of the case with the situation mentioned above, there does not appear to be much variation. The necessity to provide house sites to the poor is not something, which has developed overnight. The State recognized its obligation to provide house sites to the poor, but has swung into action at once. Spate of notifications have emerged in the district. When such large scale acquisitions are made, hardly one can expect objective and dispassionate consideration, be it in the context of preparation of list of beneficiaries, or identification of the land for acquisition. On her part, the petitioner stated that the land proposed to be acquired is far away from the village and it is intervened by lands belong to several persons, that too, on both sides of the road. If one looks at the remarks offered by the 2nd respondent, the lack of objectivity is clearly evident. He searched for one excuse or the other, in not choosing to acquire the lands mentioned by the petitioner, without even denying the fact that they are in close proximity to the village and existing houses. Had he applied the same yardstick, the land of the petitioner would certainly have been excluded from acquisition. Whatever may be the justification for the respondents, in choosing the land of the petitioner, even while omitting lands belong to others, lying in between, there is no plausible reason as to why they have not thought of identifying the government land, which is available, in abundance, in the village. The reasons furnished by the 2nd respondent and accepted by the 1st respondent, in not being able to accommodate the proposed beneficiaries, are frivolous, if not ridiculous. These are discussed under paragraph (c) of the impugned order. The extent involved is about 60 acres. It is just impossible to imagine that they could not have accommodated the beneficiaries in any part of 60 acres of government land. The power to pass orders under Section 5-A of the Act is conferred on the District Collector, who issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He is under obligation to examine the objections, though at times, he can call for particulars from his subordinates. The power to pass orders under Section 5-A of the Act is conferred on the District Collector, who issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He is under obligation to examine the objections, though at times, he can call for particulars from his subordinates. In the recent past, this court has come across dozens of cases, wherein the 1st respondent, while passing orders under Section 5-A, did nothing more than put his signature on a format fed into a computer. The format contains a standard introductory sentence of remarks to objections being called for, from the Tahsildar and RDO. Thereafter, the objections are typed on the left side, and the remarks of the RDO, on the right side. Identical sentences, at the end of every order, read as under: “After considering the objections filed by the land owners and remarks offered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is construed that there are no valid grounds in the objections. The objections are devoid of merit and hence rejected.” These sentences represent the application of mind by the District Collector. Either it is a case of lack of experience, or an instance of utter disregard of his statutory functions, that would bring about such a situation. Obviously on account of such a person being at the helm of the district administration, the subordinate officials have their own heydays, in harassing the helpless farmers. Though the parameters for interference by this court, in the matters of compulsory acquisition, are somewhat limited, it cannot remain oblivious to the lopsided enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The facts of the present case clearly demonstrate that the respondents have grossly misused their power, in identifying the land of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.