Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 683 (AP)

K. Nooruddin v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2009-10-06

P.S.NARAYANA

body2009
Judgment : Common order: These three writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order in view of the commonality of the factual matrix of these cases and also the commonality of the questions of law which had been put forth by the learned counsel representing the parties. 2. Except certain slight variations, the pleadings of the respective parties, the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the counter-affidavits and the reply affidavit also are substantially the same. 3. Interim orders had been obtained and the same were modified subsequent thereto. All these writ petitions are filed by the writ petitioners challenging initiation of land acquisition proceedings proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners specified in the respective writ petitions for the purpose of setting up LPG bottling unit for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Counter-affidavits had been filed on behalf of R-1, R-3, R-4 and R-2 as well. Reply affidavits also had been filed. 4. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners would maintain that the purpose for which the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated is not public purpose. The learned counsel also would maintain that though the policy as such cannot be challenged, the policy on the ground of irrationality definitely can be called in question before a writ court. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., though a government company, is also a company. The learned counsel also pointed out to the different extents and different survey numbers and further pointed out certain discrepancies which had crept in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience). The learned counsel also would maintain that a request was made for a larger extent, but the proposed acquisition had been ultimately thought of for a lesser extent. No notice was given giving opportunity to raise objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The learned counsel also would maintain that these discrepancies clearly go to show the non-application of mind and the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act just became an empty formality. Further the learned counsel would maintain that there was no requisition for the purpose of acquisition of these survey numbers. The learned counsel also would maintain that these discrepancies clearly go to show the non-application of mind and the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act just became an empty formality. Further the learned counsel would maintain that there was no requisition for the purpose of acquisition of these survey numbers. The counsel also pointed out to the Government Memo in this regard and would maintain that these are all lands of landless poor persons or small farmers and apart from this aspect of the matter these acquisitions are the second acquisitions, since certain of the lands of the self same petitioners had been acquired for the purpose of road widening. The learned counsel also pointed out that certain objections had been raised and certain representations had been made, but they were not considered at all. There is no reasonable nexus and there is no satisfaction which is expected to be there and, hence, the land acquisition proceedings are vitiated and the very notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel also relied on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Sri D. Krishna Murthy would maintain that the proposed acquisition is for public purpose and there cannot be any doubt, whatsoever, in this regard. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out that there is no specific averment made in any one of the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions relating to the alleged variations. The learned counsel also pointed out that inquiry, in fact, was conducted, but having attended the inquiry there was totally noncooperation, as can be seen from the stand taken from the respective counter-affidavits and hence the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in accordance with law. The Award also was made. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also pointed out that several of these petitioners having failed to file any objections, cannot now contend that there was no opportunity and the opportunity given had not been availed and in such circumstances the writ petitions being devoid of merit, the said writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also relied on certain decisions. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also relied on certain decisions. 6. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing R-2 had taken this court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and would maintain that the old Government memo which is being relied on had not been taken as a ground, but even otherwise these are only instructions and in the light of the clear stand taken in the respective counter-affidavits these are not fit matters to be interfered with. The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the Government is the best judge to decide which property to be acquired for the public purpose and it is not for the writ petitioners to suggest even otherwise. In the light of the clear legal position, the writ petitions being devoid of merit, the said writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 7. Heard the counsel on record and perused the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the respective writ petitions, the counter-affidavits filed by the respective respondents and also the reply affidavits filed and the material placed before this Court. 8. W.P.No.8014 of 2008 is filed praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating acquisition proceedings and proposed to acquire the lands of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.9-04 guntas in Sy.Nos.294-2A/A, 295/A, 295-3/A, Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District for setting up of LPG bottling unit for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of petitioners’ fundamental and statutory rights and consequently set aside the said acquisition proceedings and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners land in any manner and pass such other suitable orders. 9. 9. Likewise, W.P.No.13811 of 2008 is filed by the writ petitioners praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating acquisition proceedings dated 31.10.2007 and proposed to acquire the petitioners’ lands in Sy.No.293-1C (extent Ac.3-25 gts.), Sy.No.293-1H (extent Ac.2-32 gts.), Sy.No.293-1B (extent Ac.1-06 gts.), Sy.No.312-1B (extent Ac.2-85 gts.), Sy.No.293-1G (extent Ac.1-32 gts.), Sy.No.293-1D (extent Ac.0-96 cents), Sy.No.293-1F (extent Ac.0-96 cents), Sy.No.293-1E (extent Ac.0-96 cents), Sy.No.293-1J (extent Ac.1-34 gts.), Sy.No.293-1K (extent Ac.1-19 gts.) and Sy.No.293-1I (extent Ac.1-16 gts.) situate in Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District for setting up of LPG bottling unit for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the petitioners’ fundamental and statutory rights and consequently set aside the said acquisition proceedings, dated 31.10.2007, and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners land in any manner and pass such other suitable orders. 10. Likewise, W.P.No.13814 of 2008 is filed praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating acquisition proceedings dated 31.10.2007 and proposed to acquire the lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.313-2 (extent Ac.16-48 gts.) and Sy.No.313-1B (extent Ac.1-15 gts.) situate at Thaticherla village, Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District, for setting up of LPG bottling unit for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of petitioners’ fundamental and statutory rights and consequently set aside the said acquisition proceedings, dated 31.10.2007, and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners land in any manner and pass such other suitable orders. 11. In the light of certain slight variations in the respective affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the averments made in the respective affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are being dealt with separately. However, except an additional counter-affidavit filed by R-4 as well in W.P.No.8014 of 2008, almost all the respective stands taken by the contesting respondents being common in all the counter-affidavits, the stands taken in the respective counter-affidavits are being dealt with in common in all these writ petitions. 12. In W.P.No.8014 of 2008 it is averred that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.21-11 guntas situate at Sy.No.294-2A/A, 295/A, 295-3/A, Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. Thus, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. 13. 12. In W.P.No.8014 of 2008 it is averred that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.21-11 guntas situate at Sy.No.294-2A/A, 295/A, 295-3/A, Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. Thus, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. 13. While so, at the request of respondent No.2 for acquiring land of an extent Ac.58-25 guntas for the purpose of setting up of LPG bottling unit for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the first respondent, issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 02.11.2007, which included the petitioners’ land, an extent of Ac.9-04 guntas. 14. It is also averred that immediately after issuance of the said notification the petitioners submitted a representation, dated 08.11.2007, to respondent No.4 with a copy marked to the third respondent and Joint Collector, Anantapur District, stating that they are all small farmers eaking out their livelihood by agriculture and also a huge extent of petitioners’ lands were acquired recently by the Government for the purpose of forming 4 way line road for NH-7 by paying a meagre compensation. Further the petitioners stated that once again acquiring lands for another purpose is untenable and requested not to acquire their land. Without considering the petitioners’ objections/representations, dated 08.11.2007, respondent No.1 published declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 01-01-2008 for acquiring the lands at Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District, forming part of the petitioners’ lands, for the purpose of setting up LPG bottling unit for HPCL 15. It is also averred that thereafter petitioners along with other owners, whose land was proposed to be acquired, submitted a representation on 11.3.2008 to the third respondent stating that all he persons are small farmers and the lands proposed to be acquired are fertile lands and if the said acquisition is made, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to them. It was further stated that the proposed acquisition is for commercial purpose of a business entity and would not serve any public purpose and requested to drop all further proceedings of acquisition. 16. It was further stated that the proposed acquisition is for commercial purpose of a business entity and would not serve any public purpose and requested to drop all further proceedings of acquisition. 16. It is also stated that prior to the notification when the petitioners got to know that their land is going to be acquired for the said bottling unit, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 17.9.2007 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of A.P. and other Revenue Authorities stating that already there is a bottling plant situate 15 Kms. from Anantapur District which ceased to operate and if at all a new unit is to be opened, it can be opened at the same place instead of acquiring a new land. The petitioners further stated that they are largely depending on agriculture and requested to drop acquisition proceedings pertaining to their land. 17. Further it is stated that on receipt of the said representation, the petitioners were informed by respondent No.4 that the petitioners’ land would not be acquired, as it does not form part of the proposed acquisition for setting up of LPG bottling unit for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Further specific stand had been taken that there is an open Government land of Ac.200-00 available within 2 kms. from the petitioners which can be used for setting up of the said unit. 18. Further specific stand had been taken that the proposed acquisition as per the notification cannot be termed as serving public interest, as it is for commercial gains of a private business entity and further there is an alternate bottling unit available within 15 kms. from Anantapur town which was closed and if at all any bottling unit is to be set up, it can be done in the said land instead of acquiring land by infringing fundamental rights of the petitioners and other persons. 19. from Anantapur town which was closed and if at all any bottling unit is to be set up, it can be done in the said land instead of acquiring land by infringing fundamental rights of the petitioners and other persons. 19. Likewise, in W.P.No.13811 of 2008 it was averred that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the lands in Sy.No. 293-1C (extent Ac.3-25 gts.), Sy.No.293-1H (extent Ac.2-32 gts.), Sy.No.293-1B (extent Ac.1-06 gts.), Sy.No.312-1B (extent Ac.2-85 gts.), Sy.No.293-1G (extent Ac.1-32 gts.), Sy.No.293-1D (extent Ac.0-96 cents), Sy.No.293-1F (extent Ac.0-96 cents), Sy.No.293-1E (extent Ac.0-96 cents), Sy.No.293-1J (extent Ac.1-34 gts.), Sy.No.293-1K (extent Ac.1-19 gts.) and Sy.No.293-1I (extent Ac.1-16 gts.) situate in Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District and thus, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. 20. While so, at the request of respondent No.2 for acquiring land of an extent Ac.58-25 guntas for the purpose of setting up of LPG bottling unit for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the first respondent, issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 02.11.2007, which included the petitioners’ land, an extent of Ac.9-04 guntas. 21. It is also averred that immediately after issuance of the said notification the petitioners along with owners submitted a representation, dated 08.11.2007, to respondent No.4 with a copy marked to the third respondent and Joint Collector, Anantapur District, stating that they are all small farmers eaking out their livelihood by agriculture. 22. Further it is stated that without considering the petitioners’ objections/representation, dated 08.11.207, the first respondent published declaration under Section 6 on 01.01.2008 for acquiring the lands at Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District for the purpose of setting up LPG bottling unit for HPCL. The petitioners’ land also forms part of the said notification. 23. It is also averred that thereafter petitioners along with other owners, whose land was proposed to be acquired, submitted a representation on 11.3.2008 to the third respondent stating that all the persons are small farmers and lands proposed to be acquired are fertile lands and if the said acquisition is made, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to them. It was further stated that the proposed acquisition is for commercial purpose of a business entity and would not serve any public purpose and requested to drop all further proceedings of acquisition. 24. It was further stated that the proposed acquisition is for commercial purpose of a business entity and would not serve any public purpose and requested to drop all further proceedings of acquisition. 24. It is also stated that prior to the notification when the petitioners got to know that their land is going to be acquired for the said bottling unit, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 17.9.2007 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of A.P. and other Revenue Authorities stating that already there is a bottling plant situate 15 Kms. from Anantapur District which was ceased to operate and if at all a new unit is to be opened, it can be opened at the same place instead of acquiring a new land. The petitioners further stated that they are largely depending on the agriculture and requested to drop acquisition proceedings pertaining to their land. 25. Further it is stated that there is an open Government land of Ac.200-00 available within 2 kms. from the petitioners’ land which can be used for setting up of the said unit. 26. Further specific stand had been taken that the proposed acquisition, as per the notification, cannot be termed as serving public interest, as it is for commercial gains of a private business entity and further there is an alternate bottling unit available within 15 kms. from Anantapur town which was closed and if at all any bottling unit is to be set up, it can be done in the said land instead of acquiring land by infringing fundamental rights of the petitioners and other persons. 27. Likewise, in W.P.No.13814 of 2008 the writ petitioners averred that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No.313-2 (extent Ac.16-48 gts.) and Sy.No.313-1B (extent Ac.1-15 gts.) situate at Thaticherla village, Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District. Thus, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. 28. While so, at the request of respondent No.2 for acquiring land of an extent Ac.58-25 guntas for the purpose of setting up of LPG bottling unit for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, the first respondent, issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 02.11.2007, which included the petitioners’ land. In the said notification even though the survey number of the second petitioner was mentioned, the name was wrongly printed as B. Chowdappa so also the extent. In the said notification even though the survey number of the second petitioner was mentioned, the name was wrongly printed as B. Chowdappa so also the extent. Further the father of the first petitioner, who owns Ac.8-24 guntas in the said land, was also not mentioned and the survey number was also wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.312-2 instead of 313-2. 29. It is also averred that immediately after issuance of the said notification the petitioners along with their neighbours submitted a representation, dated 08.11.2007, to respondent No.4 with a copy marked to the third respondent and Joint Collector, Anantapur District, stating that they are all small farmers eaking out their livelihood by agriculture. It is also stated that acquiring the land of the petitioners is untenable and requested not to acquire the land. Without considering the petitioners’ objections/representations, dated 08.11.2007, respondent No.1 published Section 6 declaration on 01-01-2008 for acquiring the lands at Thaticherla village, Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District, forming part of the petitioners’ land, for the purpose of setting up LPG bottling unit for HPCL 30. It is also averred that thereafter petitioners along with other owners, whose land was proposed to be acquired, submitted a representation on 11.3.2008 to the third respondent stating that all the persons are small farmers and lands proposed to be acquired are fertile lands and if the said acquisition is made, it would cause irreparable loss and injury to them. It was further stated that the proposed acquisition is for commercial purpose of a business entity and would not serve any public purpose and requested to drop all further proceedings of acquisition. 31. It is also stated that prior to the notification when the petitioners got to know that their land is going to be acquired for the said bottling unit, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 17.9.2007 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of A.P. and other Revenue Authorities stating that already there is a bottling plant situate 15 Kms. from Anantapur District which was ceased to operate and if at all a new unit is to be opened it can be opened at the same place instead of acquiring a new land. The petitioners further stated that they are largely depending on the agriculture and requested to drop acquisition proceedings pertaining to their land. 32. from Anantapur District which was ceased to operate and if at all a new unit is to be opened it can be opened at the same place instead of acquiring a new land. The petitioners further stated that they are largely depending on the agriculture and requested to drop acquisition proceedings pertaining to their land. 32. Further specific stand had been taken that there is an open Government land of Ac.200-00 available within 2 kms. from the petitioners which can be used for setting up of the said unit. 33. Further specific stand had been taken that the proposed acquisition, as per the notification, cannot be termed as serving public interest as it is for commercial gains of a private business entity and further there is an alternate bottling unit available within 15 kms. from Anantapur town which was closed and if at all any bottling unit is to be set up, it can be done in the said land instead of acquiring land by infringing fundamental rights of the petitioners and other persons. 34. In view of the similarity of the respective stands taken by the contesting respondents, the counter-affidavits filed in W.P.No.8014 of 2008 are being dealt with and a common reply affidavit also had been filed. 35. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4 it is stated that the Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (APIICL), vide their letter No.HDP/LA/HPCL/ATP/2007/834, dated 28.6.2007, had placed requisition for acquisition of land to an extent of Ac.69-84 in Taticherla and Podaralla village of Anantapur and B.K. Samudram Mandals in Anantapur District for establishing LPG Bottling plant by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. But, subsequently the APIIC, vide their letter No.4109/20/KDP/LA/TEV/PDL/LAND/2007/935, dated 31.8.2007, submitted revised proposals to an extent of Ac.59-90 for land acquisition in Sy.Nos.312/1B, 313-2, 291-1, 291-2 etc., and requested for publication of Draft Notification and Draft Declaration. After due scrutiny of the records, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur had submitted Draft Notification and Draft Declaration proposals to the District Collector, Anantapur, for Ac.31-69 of Taticherla village of Anantapur Mandal, Survey Nos.291, 292 etc., and Ac.26-56 of Podaralla village of Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District and accordingly the Collector, Anantapur, had approved the Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act for acquisition of Ac.58-25 cents. After publication of 4 (1) notification in the local newspapers i.e., Eenadu and Vaartha on 02.11.2007, 5-A inquiry was conducted on 24.11.2007. The pattadars had attended before the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, on 24.11.2007 and represented that they were not willing to give their land for acquisition and requested for 4 days time to give their opinion. Since the petitioners filed no protest, Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was sent to the Collector under compulsory land acquisition for approval. The District Collector had approved the Draft Declaration vide Collector proceedings Rc.G1 5350/2007, dated 27.12.2007, and contents also published in the local newspapers on 03.01.2008. Subsequently, PV proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Anantapur vide RDO Anantapur letter No.D1 LA 285/2007, dated 13.5.2008, and were approved by the District Collector vide letter RC G1 5350/2007, dated 06.6.2008 and Award inquiry on 6.6.2008. It is fact that the lands belongs to the petitioners was also included in 4 (1) notification. 36. Further it is stated that it is a fact that the petitioners had submitted a representation on 08.11.2007 with LAO requesting not to acquire their land since they are small and marginal farmers, but 5 (A) inquiry was conducted on 24.11.2007 and they had attended for 5-A inquiry. But the LAO and Revenue Divisional Officer informed the petitioners that in the interest of public at large the lands are being acquired for setting up public utility industry in the district. The petitioners also requested four days time to settle the issue among themselves. Though they were allowed the requested time, they did not turn up and sent their representation through post to RDO which was received on 27.11.2007. Hence, the land acquisition proposals under compulsory acquisition were initiated. 37. It is also averred that it is not a fact that DD under Section 6 (A) of the Act was published on 01.01.2008, but the DD under Section 6 was published on 03.01.2008 in the local newspapers i.e., Andhra Bhumi and Andhra Prabha. Further it is stated that the contents stated by the petitioners that the proposed acquisition is for commercial purpose and would not serve any public purpose is not correct. Further it is stated that the contents stated by the petitioners that the proposed acquisition is for commercial purpose and would not serve any public purpose is not correct. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is not a private entity, but a Government of India enterprise-public sector undertaking and the proposed acquisition is to set up LPG bottling plant for distribution of subsidized LPG, which is an essential commodity for about 7.00 lakhs domestic customers in the rural and about 3.00 lakhs of BPL customers in the interior markets of 5 districts i.e., Kurnool, Anantapur, Kadapa, Chittoor and Nellore. Accordingly, huge public interest is involved in setting up the plant. 38. It is also averred that there is no bottling plant belong to any of the national oil companies in Anantapur district. The size, mode and capacity planned are much higher and equipped with every sensitive equipment for high quality and safety of the plant. Private micro bottling plants, if any, in the vicinity is unsuitable for meeting the increasing demand and high safety standards the purpose for which they intend to acquire the said land. 39. Further it is averred that there is no representation received from the petitioners on 17.9.2007 and the LAO was not informed anything with regard to the acquisition of their lands and no copy of plan was issued to the petitioners. It is also stated that the technical experts committee was constituted by the competent authority of HPCL to select the land and the committee visited the entire area extensively. Based on the operational feasibility study conducted by competent authority, the proposed site was selected as the best option. The proposed land had been found feasible to provide tank wagon decantation facility as it is close to Taticherla railway station and the access can be provided from the same. 40. It is further stated that even though several other options including those suggested by petitioners were explored, the relative merits favoured the proposed site and the land suggested by the petitioners is not suitable for the purpose. Further it is averred that the respondents had followed all land acquisition procedures and given enough opportunities as per procedure and no objections were received during 5A inquiry also. Further it is averred that the respondents had followed all land acquisition procedures and given enough opportunities as per procedure and no objections were received during 5A inquiry also. The acute shortage of bottled LPG in this part of the state to the domestic consumers will be served by HPCL and other public sector oil companies and can be permanently addressed only by establishing suitable infrastructure. 41. In other writ petitions also similar counter-affidavits had been filed by respondents 1, 3 and 4 and almost all the counter-affidavits on similar lines had been filed by the second respondent, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. 42. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is averred that the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. is wholly owned undertaking of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and its main objects amongst others are acquisition of lands, development of lands providing with infrastructural facilities to industrial areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, allotment of plots/sheds to entrepreneurs in the industrial areas for industrial purposes. The Corporation is vested with certain powers and functions of local bodies for exercising the same in the industrial areas to ensure prompt and effective maintenance for development of industries. 43. Further it is averred that the Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (APIICL) vide letter No.ZO/KDP/LA-HPCL/ATP/07/834, dated 28.6.2007 had placed requisition for acquisition of land to an extent of Ac.69-84 guntas in Taticherla and Podralla villages of Anantapur and B.K. Samudram (Mandal in Anantapur District for establishing LPG Bottling plant by M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Subsequently the APIIC vide letter No.4109/ZO/KDP/LA/TEV/PDL/Land/2007/935, dated 31.8.2007 submitted revised proposals to an extent of Ac.59-90 guntas for land acquisition in Sy.No.312/1B,313-2, 291-1, 291-2 etc., and requested for publication of Draft Notification and Draft Declaration. After due scrutiny of the records, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur had submitted Draft Notification and Draft Declaration proposals to the District Collector, Anantapur for Ac.31-69 gunts of Taticherla village of Anantapur Mandal, Sy.No.291, 292 etc., and Ac.26-56 of Podralla village of Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. Accordingly, the Collector, Anantapur had approved the Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, dated 31.10.2007 for acquisition of Ac.58-25, vide Collector, Anantapur proceedings Rc.G1.5350/07, dated 31.10.2007. After publication of 4 (1) notification in the local newspapers i.e., Eenadu and Vaartha on 02.11.2007, 5-A inquiry was conducted on 24.11.2007. Accordingly, the Collector, Anantapur had approved the Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, dated 31.10.2007 for acquisition of Ac.58-25, vide Collector, Anantapur proceedings Rc.G1.5350/07, dated 31.10.2007. After publication of 4 (1) notification in the local newspapers i.e., Eenadu and Vaartha on 02.11.2007, 5-A inquiry was conducted on 24.11.2007. The pattadars had attended before the LAO and RDO, Anantapur on 24.11.2007 and represented that they were not willing to give their land for acquisition and requested for 4 days time to give their opinion. They did not turn up even after 4 days time, but sent their representation through post to RDO which was received on 27.11.2007. Even after observing the allowed time of 30 days, no protest was filed by the petitioners and DD under Section 6 of the Act was sent to the Collector under compulsory land acquisition for approval. The District Collector had approved the DD vide Collector Proceedings Rc.G1.5350/2007, dated 27.12.2007 and contents also published in the local newspapers on 03.01.2008. Subsequently, PV proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Anantapur vide RDO, Anantapur letter No.D1.LA.285/2007, dated 13.5.2008 were approved by the District Collector vide letter Rc.G1.5350/2007, dated 06.6.2008 and Award inquiry on 16.6.2008. The lands of the petitioners in W.P.13811 of 2008 and the petitioners herein were also included in 4 (1) Notification. 44. It is also averred that it is a fact that the petitioners had submitted a representation on 08.11.207with LAO requesting not to acquire their land, since they are small and marginal farmers, but 5 (A) inquiry was conducted on 24.11.2007. But on 26.11.2007 they came with representation to LAO and RDO, Anantapur with a request not to acquire their land. But the LAO and RDO informed the petitioners that in the interest of public, the lands are being acquired for setting up public utility industry in the district. At the request of the petitioners, though they were allowed four days time to settle the issue among themselves, they did not turn up. Hence, the LAO proceeded under compulsory land acquisition. 45. It is also averred that it is not a fact that DD under Section 6 (A) of the Act was published on 01.01.2008. But the DD under Section 6 was published on 03.01.2008 in the local newspapers i.e., Andhra Bhoomi and Andhra Prabha. Hence, the LAO proceeded under compulsory land acquisition. 45. It is also averred that it is not a fact that DD under Section 6 (A) of the Act was published on 01.01.2008. But the DD under Section 6 was published on 03.01.2008 in the local newspapers i.e., Andhra Bhoomi and Andhra Prabha. It is further stated that the contents stated by the petitioners that the proposed acquisition is for commercial purpose and would not serve any public purpose is not correct. The proposed acquisition is to set up LPG bottling plant for distribution of subsidized LPG, which is an essential commodity for about 7.00 lakhs domestic consumers in the rural and about 3.00 lakhs of BPCL customers in the interior markets of 5 districts i.e., Kurnool, Anantapur, Kadapa, Chittoor and Nellore. 46. Further it is averred that there is no bottling plant belonging to any of the national oil companies in Anantapur District as claimed by the petitioners. The size, mode and capacity planned are much higher and equipped with very sensitive equipment for high quality and safety of the plant. Private micro bottling plants, if any, existing in the vicinity are unsuitable for the purpose for which the respondents intend to acquire the said land. Specific stand had been taken that they cannot put the plant in any other place as the land has to be very near to railway station to make a railway siding (the existing plot has tank wagon decantation access facility being close to Taticherla railway station) easy access to highways and based on some technical attributes, the Selection Committee after careful study finalized the above site for acquisition. The Government land which the petitioners proposed is not suitable for setting up proposed LPG unit. 47. Further it is averred that Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is not a private entity, but a Government of India enterprise-public sector undertaking and the proposed land helps in establishing a plant for ensuring the supplies of an essential commodity i.e., LPG. Accordingly, huge public interest is involved in setting up the plant. Further specific stand had been taken that the land in which the petitioners suggested to set up is not suitable for the purpose for the technical aspects, as they require shunting line for providing railway siding. Accordingly, huge public interest is involved in setting up the plant. Further specific stand had been taken that the land in which the petitioners suggested to set up is not suitable for the purpose for the technical aspects, as they require shunting line for providing railway siding. The land which is proposed for acquisition now is having the provision for providing railway siding which is one of the main requirements. It is also stated that as no bottling plant existed in Anantapur district belonging to any major oil company comparable to the scale and mode of proposed bottling plant and this LPG bottling plant will cater to the demand of the domestic customers of the districts of Anantapur, Kurnool, Kadapa, Chittoor and Nellore at large and also other public sector oil industries i.e., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The acute shortage of bottled LPG in this part of the State to the domestic consumers will be served by HPCL and other public sector oil companies and can be permanently addressed only by establishing suitable infrastructure. LPG being notified as an essential commodity, the distribution of LPG is of an utmost public interest and hence the acquisition is necessary. The petitioners had challenged any illegalities in procedure followed by the Land Acquisition Officer in conducting the land acquisition proceedings as reasonable opportunity was provided to them. 48. In the counter-affidavits filed in other writ petitions also almost similar stand had been taken. 49. In the common reply affidavit filed it is averred that immediately after issuance of Section 4 (1) notification the petitioners herein along with other affected farmers submitted a representation to respondent No.4 with a copy marked to respondent No.3 and Joint Collector, Anantapur district bringing all heir grievances stating that they are all small farmers, eaking their livelihood from agriculture and that recently a huge extent of petitioners’ lands were acquired by the Government for the purpose of forming 4 way line road for NH-7 by paying a meagre compensation far below the market value. Even though the petitioners submitted representation before 30 days of publication of Section 4 notification the respondents without calling the petitioners for 5A inquiry published Section 6 declaration for acquisition of petitioners’ lands. 50. Further certain averments were made at paras 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as well in the respective counter-affidavits. Even though the petitioners submitted representation before 30 days of publication of Section 4 notification the respondents without calling the petitioners for 5A inquiry published Section 6 declaration for acquisition of petitioners’ lands. 50. Further certain averments were made at paras 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as well in the respective counter-affidavits. Since substantially the respective stands taken by the parties in other writ petitions also, though the counter-affidavits had been filed by different respondents, being the same, the said averments are not being dealt with in elaboration. 51. There are the respective stands taken by the parties. 52. The submissions made in elaboration by Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners in all these writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Sri D. Krishna Murthy, and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2, Sri P. Roy Reddy, also had been referred to above. 53. As can be seen from the respective counter-affidavits, on careful analysis, this Court is well satisfied that though opportunity had been given, the writ petitioners having left the place, subsequently had not availed the said opportunity and, hence, now they cannot turn down and say that no proper opportunity had been given under Section 5-A of the Act. This Court also had gone through the respective notifications issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act and the discrepancies which had been pointed out. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the acquisition is made for public purpose, at the best, the writ petitioners can agitate for reasonable compensation or higher compensation, as the case may be, and especially in the light of the specific stand taken relating to the suitability of these lands, the decision taken in this regard being a policy decision and since the establishment of bottling unit had been thought of in public interest, it cannot be said that the proposed acquisition is not for the public purpose. Further, on careful analysis of the counter-affidavits filed in detail in W.P.Nos.13811 of 2008 and 13814 of 2008 this Court is thoroughly further satisfied that there is no illegality in the present proceedings initiated for land acquisition, it may be true that certain of the petitioners may be small farmers. 54. Further, on careful analysis of the counter-affidavits filed in detail in W.P.Nos.13811 of 2008 and 13814 of 2008 this Court is thoroughly further satisfied that there is no illegality in the present proceedings initiated for land acquisition, it may be true that certain of the petitioners may be small farmers. 54. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in J.R. Raghupathy etc., v. State of A.P. and others AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1681 wherein the Apex Court while dealing with guidelines held at para 18 as hereunder. “Broadly speaking, the contention on behalf of the State Government is that relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not available to enforce administrative rules. Regulations or instructions which have no statutory force, in the absence of exceptional circumstances. It is well-settled that mandamus does not lie to enforce departmental manuals or instructions not having any statutory force, which do not give rise to any legal right in favour of the petitioner. The law on the subject is succinctly stated in Durga Das Basu's Administrative Law, 2nd Edn. at p. 144 : "administrative instructions, rules or manuals, which have no statutory force, are not enforceable in a court of law. Though for breach of such instructions, the public servant may be held liable by the State and disciplinary action may be taken against him, a member of the public who is aggrieved by the breach of such instructions cannot seek any remedy in the courts. The reason is, that not having the force of law, they cannot confer any legal right upon anybody, and cannot, therefore, be enforced even by writs under Art. 226. " The learned author however rightly points out at p. 145 : "even though a non-statutory rule, bye-law or instructions may be changed by the authority who made it, without any formality and it cannot ordinarily be enforced through a Court of law, the party aggrieved by its non-enforcement may, nevertheless, get relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution where the non-observance of the non-statutory rule or practice would result in arbitrariness or absence of fairplay or discrimination, particularly where the authority making such non-statutory rule or the like comes within the definition of 'state' under Art. 12. " In G. J. Fernandez's case ( AIR 1967 SC 1753 ), the petitioner submitting the lowest tender assailed the action of the Chief Engineer in addressing a communication to all the tenderers stating that even the lowest tender was unduly high and enquired whether they were prepared to reduce their tenders. One of them having reduced the amount of his tender lower than the lowest, the Chief Engineer made a report to the Technical Sub-Committee which made its recommendations to the Major Irrigation Projects Control Board, the final authority, which accepted the tender so offered. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no breach of the conditions of tender contained in the Public Works Department Code and further that there was no discrimination which attracted the application of Art. 14. The question that fell for consideration before this Court was whether the Code consisted of statutory rules or not. The so-called Rules contained in the Code were not framed under any statutory enactment or the Constitution. Wanchoo, C. J. speaking for the Court held that under Art. 162 the executive power of the State enables the Government to issue administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances, but that would not make such instructions statutory rules the breach of which is justiciable. It was further held that non-observance of such administrative instructions did not give any right to a person like the appellant to come to Court for any relief on the alleged breach of the instructions. That precisely is the position here. The guidelines are merely in the nature of instructions issued by the State Government to the Collectors regulating the manner in which they should formulate their proposals for formation of a Revenue Mandal or for location of its Headquarters keeping in view the broad guidelines laid down in Appendix I to the White Paper. It must be stated that the guidelines had no statutory force and they had also not been published in the Official Gazette. The guidelines were mere departmental instructions meant for the Collectors. The ultimate decision as to formation of a Revenue Mandal or location of its Headquarters was with the Government. It was for that reason that the Government issued the preliminary notification under subs. (5) of S. 3 of the Act inviting objections and suggestions. The guidelines were mere departmental instructions meant for the Collectors. The ultimate decision as to formation of a Revenue Mandal or location of its Headquarters was with the Government. It was for that reason that the Government issued the preliminary notification under subs. (5) of S. 3 of the Act inviting objections and suggestions. The objections and suggestions were duly processed in the Secretariat and submitted to the Cabinet Sub-Committee along with its comments. The note of the Collector appended to the proposal gave reasons for deviating from the guidelines in some of the aspect. Such deviation was usually for reasons of administrative convenience keeping in view the purpose and object of the Act i. e. to bring the administration nearer to the people. The Cabinet Sub-Committee after consideration of the objections and suggestions received from the Gram Panchayats and members of the public and other organizations as well as the comments of the Secretariat and the note of the Collector came to a decision applying the standards of reasonableness, relevance and purpose while keeping in view the object and purpose of the legislation, published a final notification under sub-s. (5) of S. 3 of the Act. There is nothing on record to show that the decision of the State Government in any of these cases was arbitrary or capricious or was one not reached in good faith or actuated with improper considerations or influenced by extraneous considerations. In a matter like this, conferment of discretion upon the Government in the matter of formation of a Revenue Mandal or location of its Headquarters in the nature of things necessarily leaves the Government with a choice in the use of the discretion conferred upon it.” 55. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy and others v. Collector and another 2008 (5) ALD 302 and handrala Narsaiah and others v. Pastapurapu Bhadraiah and others AIR 1973 AP 75 . 56. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 627 at paras 6 and 9 the Apex Court observed as hereunder. “It is not in dispute that Section 5a of the act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. 56. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 627 at paras 6 and 9 the Apex Court observed as hereunder. “It is not in dispute that Section 5a of the act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300a of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regard consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5a of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in article 300a of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. 57. The Apex Court in Talson Real Estate (P) Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and others (2007)13 SCC 186 at paras 16 and 18 observed as hereunder. “The provisions of Section 5a of the Act are attracted only when a person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 (1) makes objection in writing to the Collector within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notification. The period of 30 days will have to be counted from the last day of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act which, in the present case, was admittedly published in the Official Gazette on 17. 04. 1997 and in two daily newspapers on the same day. The substance of such notification was notified on the site on 30. 04. 1997. The appellant-company did not choose to file objections under Section 5a of the Act against the acquisition of its land bearing Survey No. 23/2/1, admeasuring 1 Hectare 82 Ares. 04. 1997 and in two daily newspapers on the same day. The substance of such notification was notified on the site on 30. 04. 1997. The appellant-company did not choose to file objections under Section 5a of the Act against the acquisition of its land bearing Survey No. 23/2/1, admeasuring 1 Hectare 82 Ares. The appellant-company, being the owner of the land, has not filed objection under Section 5a, in principle, must be accepted that it had no objection to Section 4 notification operating in respect of its property. Those claimants -owners of the lands who have not filed objection under Section 5a could not be allowed to contend that Section 5a inquiry was bad and that consequently Section 6 declaration must be struck down and that then the Section 4 notification would lapse.” 58. In Kanpur Development Authority v. Mahabir Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd and others (2005) 10 SCC 320 the Apex Court at para 4 observed as hereunder. “In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent landowners made submissions in support of the impugned orders. They asserted that the respondents were not given opportunity of hearing during the enquiry said to have been held under Section 5-A of the Act. They also submitted that there have been some subsequent developments. When we specifically asked, whether the High Court could quash the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, even assuming that the respondents were denied opportunity of hearing during the course of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the learned counsel were not in a position to give any satisfactory reply in this regard. It is well settled that notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act suffers from incurable irregularity, such as, total vagueness in regard to the property to be acquired and in regard to the public purpose.” 59. Further strong reliance was placed on the decision in Sooraram Pratap Reddy and others v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others 2008 (7) SCJ 641 wherein the Apex Court observed that in deciding whether acquisition is for ‘public purpose’ or not, prima facie, Government is the best Judge and normally in such matters, a writ Court will not interfere by substituting its judgment for the judgment of the Government. 60. 60. In Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another (2003) 3 SCC 128 the Apex Court observed at para 65 as hereunder. “The power to acquire by State the land owned by its subjects hails from the right of eminent domain vesting in the State which is essentially an attribute of sovereign power of the State. So long as the public purpose subsists the exercise of the power by the State to acquire the land of its subjects without regard to the wishes or willingness of the owner or person interested in the land cannot be questioned.” 61. In Scindia Employees’ Union v. State of Maharastra and others (1996) 10 SCC 150 it was observed at para 64 as hereunder. “The very object of compulsory acquisition is in exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State against the wishes or willingness of the owner or person interested in the land. Therefore, so long as the public purpose subsists the exercise of the power of eminent domain cannot be questioned. Publication of declaration under Section 6 is conclusive evidence of public purpose. In view of the finding that it is a question of expansion of dockyard for defence purpose, it is a public purpose.” 62. In Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka and others (1988) 3 SCC 263 it was observed as hereunder. “It is trite knowledge that eminent domain is an essential attribute of sovereignty of every state and authorities are universal in support of the definition of eminent domain as the power of the sovereign to take property for public use without the owner’s consent upon making just compensation.” 63. In Pandit Jadhulal and others Vs. “It is trite knowledge that eminent domain is an essential attribute of sovereignty of every state and authorities are universal in support of the definition of eminent domain as the power of the sovereign to take property for public use without the owner’s consent upon making just compensation.” 63. In Pandit Jadhulal and others Vs. State of Punjab 1961 (2) SCR 459 the land of the appellant was proposed for acquisition for construction of houses by members of Thappar Industries Co-operative Housing Society Limited and the proceedings were initiated under Part-II of the Act and when the said action was challenged on the ground that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Part-VII of the Act and the proceedings are liable to be quashed the High Court held that the land was acquired for a public purpose and there was no need to comply with the provisions of Part-VII even though the company was to pay the entire amount of compensation and came to the conclusion that the High Court was entirely correct though the process of reasoning by which the High Court reached the conclusion was erroneous. The Apex Court observed that the Act contemplates acquisition for a public purpose and for a company thus conveying the idea that acquisition for a company is not for a public purpose and hence it was also observed that the purpose of public utility referred to in Sections 40 and 41 of the Act are akin to public purpose and hence the acquisition for a public purpose as also acquisition for a company are governed by considerations of public utility but the procedure for the two kinds of acquisitions is different and if it is for a company then acquisition has to be effected in accordance with the procedure laid down in Part-VII of the Act. 64. In R.L. Arora Vs. 64. In R.L. Arora Vs. State of U.P. and others 1964(6) SCR 784 it was held that in view of the amendment made in the Act even if the acquisition did not satisfy the conditions laid down under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Act, it would be valid if they satisfy the conditions in clause (aa) introduced by the Amendment Act and when once the Government decided to acquire land for public purpose, such acquisition cannot be challenged on the ground that the procedure laid down in Part-VII of the Act had not been followed. The decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Motibhai Vithalbhai Pate and another Vs. State of Gujarat and another AIR 1961 Gujarat 93 also had been relied upon. 65. In Jage Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (1971) 1 S.C.C. 671 where a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land for public purpose i.e., for setting up of a factory and urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was also applied by dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and when the said action was challenged by the land owners, the acquisition was upheld stating that so long as it is not established that the acquisition is sought to be made for some collateral purpose, the declaration of the Government that it is made for a public purpose is final, conclusive and not open to challenge. 66. In Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2008(1) SCJ 606 = 2008(1) SCC 728 where the land was sought to be acquired by the State to set up ‘Ganesha Project’, a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 and the acquisition was challenged on the ground that though the land was sought to be acquired for a company, the procedure was followed under Part II and not under Part VII and hence bad in law, it was held that the record revealed that the payment of the entire amount of compensation was to be made by the company and therefore it was incumbent to follow the procedure laid down in Part VII. But however it was contended by the State that it would be contributing Rs.100/- and hence it was covered by Part II and the acquisition was legal and valid. But however it was contended by the State that it would be contributing Rs.100/- and hence it was covered by Part II and the acquisition was legal and valid. No doubt in such a case the Court held that the procedure laid down under Part VII was required to be followed. 67. In Amarnath Ashram Trust Society and another Vs. Governor of U.P. and others 1998(1) SCC 591 where the land was sought to be acquired for play ground for students of Amarnath Vidya Ashram (public school), Mathura and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued stating that the land was required for public purpose and the same was challenged on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Part VII was not followed and the acquisition was bad in law, the said contention was upheld. 68. In Pratibha Nema and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2003) 10 SCC 626 it was observed as hereunder: “Thus the distinction between public purpose acquisition and Part VII acquisition has got blurred under the impact of judicial interpretation of relevant provisions. The main and perhaps the decisive distinction lies in the fact whether cost of acquisition comes out of public funds wholly or partly. Here again, even a token or nominal contribution by the Government was held to be sufficient compliance with the second proviso to Section 6 as held in a catena of decisions. The net result is that by contributing even a trifling sum, the character and pattern of acquisition could be changed by the Government. In ultimate analysis, what is considered to be an acquisition for facilitating the setting up of an industry in private sector could get imbued with the character of public purpose acquisition if only the Government comes forward to sanction the payment of a nominal sum towards compensation. In the present state of law, that seems to be the real position”. 69. In W.B. Housing Board Etc. Vs. Brijendra Prasad Gupta (1997) 6 SCC 207 where the land was acquired for providing houses to poor people and the action was challenged on the ground that the Housing Board was to earn profit and hence it cannot be said to be for a public purpose, the said contention did not find favour and the acquisition was upheld. 70. In Aflatoon and others Vs. 70. In Aflatoon and others Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others (1975) 4 SCC 285 where the land was sought to be acquired for “Planned Development of Delhi” and neither the Master Plan nor the Zonal Plan was ready the question before the Court was whether the acquisition proceedings could have been initiated in the absence of Master Plan or Zonal Plan, considering the relevant provisions of the Delhi Development Act 1957 the Court held that the proceedings did not get vitiate in the absence of such Plan. 71. In fact the Apex Court in Sooraram Pratap Reddy and others v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others (7 supra) referred to above had been dealing with acquisition of land for a private company and in that context the concept of public purpose was dealt with in elaboration. In the light of the specific stand taken by the Government and also by the Corporation, the second respondent, inasmuch as the Government being the best Judge in taking a decision in this regard, after following due procedure the acquisition proceedings are being proceeded with. Though opportunity had been given the petitioners not having availed the opportunity and not having raised objections in accordance with law now cannot turn round and say that the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had not been made in accordance with law the parties cannot take advantage of their own wrong and throw the blame on the respondents. Even the objections raised relating to these slight variations may not vitiate the proceedings, since on a careful scrutiny of the records the Court is satisfied that the proceedings had been proceeded with by the respondents in accordance with law in taking further steps under the provisions of the Act. 72. Relating to the availability of the Government land specific stand had been taken. 72. Relating to the availability of the Government land specific stand had been taken. How this land would be suitable for the specified purpose and inasmuch as on careful consideration this policy decision had been taken and in pursuance thereof the acquisition proceedings had been initiated and these proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Act being for public purpose and except for certain trivial lapses which may not vitiate the proceedings as such since no substantial grounds as such had been raised in these writ petitions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners may agitate their rights for due and reasonable compensation and cannot object for the proposed acquisition on any tenable ground, whatsoever, since no tenable ground as such had been made out. 73. Hence, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the writ petitions being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.