JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioner filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.1-82 cents in Sy.No.78/2A and 2B of Yenamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District and the process concerning the same including irejection of the objections of the petitioner as per the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.G4/2379/2007 dated 12-2-2009 as arbitrary and illegal and vitiated by non-application of mind and consequently to direct the respondent to forbear from acquiring the said land of the petitioner and to pass such other suitable orders. 2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 16-6-2009 and granted status quo initially for a limited period which is being extended from time to time. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition filed W.V.M.P.No.3383/2009 and at the request of the Counsel, the Writ Petition itself is being disposed of finally. 4. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the averments made in the counter affidavit and further had drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Collector dated 12-2-2009 and the representation of the petitioner dated 14-10-2008 and Form-3 notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience) and also the notice for acquisition published in the newspaper. The learned Senior Counsel also had pointed out to the objections and the findings recorded and the learned Senior Counsel in particular had pointed out to the findings recorded in relation to objections 4 and 5 and would maintain that this would show the total non-application of mind and at any rate since the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act not being an empty formality, may be that this order under challenge being unsustainable is liable to be quashed. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on the contrary had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit and would maintain that since the objections had been considered and the findings had been recorded nothing more need be done and none of the grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition can be said to be sustainable grounds. The Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 6. Heard the Counsel and perused the records and also the respective pleadings of the parties. 7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the 1st respondent had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was published in Andhra Bhoomi Daily Telugu Newspaper dated 24-5-2007 purporting to acquire an extent of Ac.1-70 cents of the petitioner’s wet land in Sy.No.78/2 of Yenamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District by erroneously describing it as dry land for the purpose of providing house sites to Scheduled Caste and Backward Caste persons under Indiramma Padhakam. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said land acquisition notification was in respect of a total extent of Ac.2-16 cents in Sy.No.78/2 and thus in addition to the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.1-70 cents, an extent of Ac.0-46 cents of land of one Velagapudi Sankara Babu was included and since the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not dispensed with, a notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued to the petitioner scheduling the date of enquiry and hearing with regard to the objections as 11-6-2007. It is also further averred that in the notice of hearing issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the extent of the land was mentioned as Ac.1-70 cents only and again the 1st respondent had issued another notice under Section 5-A of the Act scheduling the date of hearing on 14-10-2008 wherein it is stated that an extent of Ac.1-82 cents of the petitioner’s land is under acquisition. 8. 8. It is further stated that challenging the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioner had unsuccessfully filed W.P.No.11337/2007 and the contention in the said Writ Petition was that the acquisition proceedings are per se illegal when agricultural user of the land had not suffered a change as required under A.P. Agricultural Conversion for Non-Agricultural Lands Act 2006 and since it was also contended about non-conduct of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in the said Writ Petition, the 1st respondent had issued a notice of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act dated 24-9-2008 purporting to hold the hearing on 14-10-2008 and called upon the petitioner to submit objections. In response to the said notice the petitioner had submitted the objections contending that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land is wholly unjustified since a wet land where paddy is grown should not be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma Padhakam and there is alternative land available in Sy.No.59 of the village belonging to the Government admeasuring Ac.2-34 cents and hence the acquisition ought not to have been initiated since the Government can serve the purpose of the present acquisition. It was also contended that the subject land was acquired by the petitioner’s father and the same devolved on the petitioner and his two sisters and acquisition of the same causes serious injustice as they would be deprived of fertile land which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 9. It is further stated that the 1st respondent by the present impugned order dated 12-2-2009 had rejected the objections on the ground that since the petitioner’s family has got an extent of Ac.8-20 cents in the same village, the petitioner can part with the land under acquisition and that though the land is a fertile land, it would suit the purpose of providing house sites and that the alternative Government land suggested is also under acquisition process. It further the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is vitiated by arbitrariness and total non-application of mind. It is futile to acquire fertile lands for the purpose of providing house sites to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe communities. The housing needs can be met by any type of land whereas paddy yielding of land is not capable of being created or changed by the human beings. It is futile to acquire fertile lands for the purpose of providing house sites to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe communities. The housing needs can be met by any type of land whereas paddy yielding of land is not capable of being created or changed by the human beings. It is further stated that the State which holds a public trust for the people shall not act in arbitrary and unjustified manner and deprive the farmers of their fertile lands promoting the political slogan of land acquisitions for Indiramma Padhakam. It is also further stated that the fertile land which is yielding paddy is a concern of livelihood for generations to generations and payment of compensation amount as one time measure would not alleviate the loss caused due to acquisition of such fertile lands. At any rate a perusal of the impugned order would clearly suggest that the 1st respondent is acting with a closed mind since it is a conversive on his part to reject all the objections. 10. It is also further stated that as per the laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and others (2005 (6) ALT 40 (SC) = 2005 (7) SCC 627 ) an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is a minimal protection to the land holder and hence exercising the jurisdiction under Section 5-A of the Act requires extreme care and caution and since such a jurisdiction is in the nature of adjudication of a dispute, it becomes more onerous and the State should proceed with impartial mind while considering the objections under Section 5-A of the Act and in any view of the matter the impugned order of the 1st respondent rejecting the objections of the petitioner without verification of the factual data is arbitrary and illegal. It is further stated that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and transplantation of paddy is to be commenced depending upon the setting of the monsoon. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 11. The objections filed by the writ petitioner and the findings recorded in relation thereto in Rc.No.G4/2379/2007 dated 12-2-2009 are as hereunder: Objections of Sri Janyavula Venkata Subba Rao Findings 1. The land notified is in the name of Sri Janyavula Venkateswara Rao, deceased father of the objector. 11. The objections filed by the writ petitioner and the findings recorded in relation thereto in Rc.No.G4/2379/2007 dated 12-2-2009 are as hereunder: Objections of Sri Janyavula Venkata Subba Rao Findings 1. The land notified is in the name of Sri Janyavula Venkateswara Rao, deceased father of the objector. The father and mother of the objector died and the said property is the only property in the name of his deceased father that devolved to the objector and his two sisters. 1. The land proposed is found suitable for house site purpose, and hence proposed for acquisition. The name of the enjoyers as per the record has been notified. However, notices will be issued under Section 9(3) of Land Acquisition Act and all the interested persons can also attend the Award Enquiry to give their deposition claiming the compensation producing the Documentary evidence and the same will be considered. 2. There are many other lands covered under the same Mandal which are suitable for acquisition rather than their property referred above which is a small extent of land and does not have a good approach road and which is also not suitable for acquisition. There are lands in the above-mentioned vicinity to larger extents, which are suitable for acquisition for the purpose of public utility and public purpose. The above-referred land is in the name of Late Janyavula Venkateswara Rao is only property of the objector and his two sisters and they have no other immovable property except the property referred above. 2. There are no other lands found suitable for house site purpose. The land notified is having good approach road and found very suitable for house site purpose. Hence, notified for acquisition for house site purpose. The objector is having Ac.8-20 cents of land in Yanamalakuduru village. 3. The livelihood of the objectors is only on the returns derived from the above referred land and the said land is also the part of PASUPU KUMKUMA given to his sisters at the time of their marriages. Though the said land is held in the name of his deceased father, it is under enjoyment of the objector and his two sisters of their respective shares. Though the said land is held in the name of his deceased father, it is under enjoyment of the objector and his two sisters of their respective shares. In the above referred land the objector, though not executed any deed of partition among the objector and his sisters, is having only 1/3rd share and the returns of the said land is only livelihood as he is left without enjoyment and having no other source of income. 3. Enquiry reveals that the objector is having house and house site measuring an extent of Ac.0-30 cents and that the said house site is given to the sister of the objector towards PASUPU KUMKUMA. The objector is having an extent of Ac.8-20 cents of land in R.S.No.44/1, 2, 55/5, 78/2 and 136/2 of Yanamalakuduru village and he is not solely depended on his land notified in this case. 4. The land under acquisition is under cultivation of fruit plantations like Mango, Sapota, Guava and to some extent Banana which are seasonal in cultivation. 4. The land referred above for acquisition is under cultivation by paddy only. The objector is not cultivating fruit plantations like Mango, Sapota, Guava and Banana in the land under acquisition. 5. There are other Government lands covered under Sy.No.59 at larger extents which can be acquired by the Government for public purpose. Added to this there are larger extents of lands covered under different survey numbers in different villages in Penamaluru Mandal which can be acquired for public purpose. There are also occasions that the Government had already acquired lands previously in Yanamalakuduru village itself for public purpose and it is being penalized under every occasion that the small and weaker land holders are the sufferers of acquisition of small extent of lands which are held for their livelihood. 5. There are no suitable Government lands available in Yanamalakuduru village for house site purpose. An extent of Ac.2-34 cents in R.S.No.59 is also under acquisition, which is under process for house site purpose. The land of the objector and others notified is adjacent to the Donka and suitable for house site purpose. The acquisition of land in these cases does not affect the small farmers in any way. As already aforesaid Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel laid emphasis on objections 4 and 5 and the findings recorded in relation thereto. 12. The land of the objector and others notified is adjacent to the Donka and suitable for house site purpose. The acquisition of land in these cases does not affect the small farmers in any way. As already aforesaid Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel laid emphasis on objections 4 and 5 and the findings recorded in relation thereto. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent the brief history of the case is narrated as hereunder : 13. An extent of Ac.2-16 cents in R.S.No.78/2 (part) of Yanamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal is proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to the weaker sections of the village under Indiramma Padhakam Phase II. The draft notification was approved by the Collector, Krishna and the same was published in Krishna Gazette No.107/07 dated 21-5-2007 in two daily news papers i.e., Andhra Prabha and Pledge on 23-5-2007 and in the locality dated 24-5-2007. At the said stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11337/2007 and this Court issued interim stay. Velagapudi Sankara Babu, the other land holder notified for an extent of Ac.0-46 cents had also filed W.P.No.12540/2007 and this Court issued orders of interim stay of dispossession. subsequently this Court by order dated 27-6-2008 dismissed both the Writ Petitions. It is further stated that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held on 14-10-2008 and objections were filed by all the land holders. The said objections were enquired and reported to the Collector, Krishna. The Collector, Krishna passed orders under Section 5-A(2) of the Act overruling the objections filed by the land holders and the draft declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act had been submitted to the Collector, Krishna for approval. 14. In reply to para-2 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the Government had taken a policy decision to develop model villages and towns on the concept of saturation of identified basic infrastructure facilities and welfare measures by following focused area approach and housing is one of the programmes identified under Indiramma Padhakam to meet the total demand and to achieve the object of providing permanent houses to all under Indiramma Programme. Yanamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal is declared as a model village in Phase II Indiramma Programme. On verification it was found that 253 poor SC/ST/BC families do not have own houses or house sites. Yanamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal is declared as a model village in Phase II Indiramma Programme. On verification it was found that 253 poor SC/ST/BC families do not have own houses or house sites. The beneficiaries were selected duly considering Grama Sabha in the village. In this regard, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, the Tahsildar, Penamaluru and the Mandal Surveyor had inspected the lands in the village and land measuring an extent of Ac.2-28 cents in R.S.No.78/2 etc., is adjacent to the village and suitable for construction of houses. There are no structures in the proposed lands. There is no other alternative suitable Government land available in the village for the said purpose. Accordingly the draft notification was approved by the Collector, Krishna and the same was published in Krishna Gazette No.107/07 dated 21-5-2007. The draft notification was also published in the news papers i.e., Andhra Prabha and Pledge on 23-5-2007 and at the locality on 24-5-2007. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held on 14-10-2008 and the objections were filed by all the land holders. The said objections were enquired and reported to the Collector, Krishna. The Collector, Krishna had passed orders under Section 5-A(2) of the Act dated 12-2-2009 in G4/2379/2007 overruling the objections filed by the land holders. The draft declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act had been submitted to the Collector for approval. Therefore there is no violation of the provisions of the Act in the process. The acquisition is not against the principles of natural justice. The land is classified Dry as per the village records and the same had been mentioned in the notification. The total extent of the land belonging to the petitioner was notified as Ac.1-70 cents in R.S.No.78/2. However, the petitioner is possessing and enjoying an extent of Ac.1-82 cents on ground and hence Form-3 notice under Section 5-A of the Act and the subsequent draft declaration proposals were corrected to Ac.1-8 2cents against the name of the petitioner. 15. In reply to para-3 of the affidavit it is stated that the draft notification was approved by the Collector, Krishna and the same was published in the Krishna Gazette No.107/07 dated 21-5-2007. The draft notification was also published person the news papers Andhra Prabha and Pledge on 23-5-2007 and at the locality on 24-5-2007. 15. In reply to para-3 of the affidavit it is stated that the draft notification was approved by the Collector, Krishna and the same was published in the Krishna Gazette No.107/07 dated 21-5-2007. The draft notification was also published person the news papers Andhra Prabha and Pledge on 23-5-2007 and at the locality on 24-5-2007. Though From-3 notices under Section 5-A of the Act were issued to the land holders/interested persons calling them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer and then the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada on 11-6-2007 and file objections the petitioner and other land holders appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and then Revenue Divisional Officer and handed over the copies of the Writ Petition filed and the interim orders granted by this Court. The then Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada submitted the interim orders of this Court to the Collector, Krishna. The Collector, Krishna directed the then Sub-Collector, Vijayawada to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act as the land holders were not heard or had not filed any objections on 11-6-2007. Again From-3 notices under Section 5-A of the Act were served on the land holders calling them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Vijayawada on 14-10-2008 and file the objections, if any. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held on 14-10-2008 and the objections were filed by all the land holders. The said objections were enquired and reported to the Collector, Krishna. The Collector, Krishna had passed orders under Section 5-A(2) of the Act in G4/2379/2007 dated 12-2-2009 overruling the objections filed by the land holders in this case. 16. In reply to para-4 of the affidavit it is stated that while issuing the notices under Section 5-A of the Act for calling objections and enquiry the Mandal Surveyor, Penamaluru had conducted ground survey on the notified land in which it was found that the actual extent of land is Ac.1-82 cents but Ac.1-70 cents was notified. The revised extent of Ac.1-82 cents in R.S.No.78/2 had been taken and the same is being conducted in the land acquisition proceedings. The revised extent of Ac.1-82 cents in R.S.No.78/2 had been taken and the same is being conducted in the land acquisition proceedings. Further, in reply to para-5 of the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.11337/2007 before this Court and the same was dismissed with costs on 27-6-2008 on the ground that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22809/2006 and batch dated 1-10-2007 had not accepted the contention raised under the NALA Act 2006 as it does not prohibit the acquisition of agricultural land for future use for non-agricultural purposes. Once the State acquires the land under the provisions of the Act it becomes the owner and is exempted from the application of the provisions of the NALA Act 2006 by virtue of Section 7(a) of the said Act and therefore the land acquisition proceedings continued and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 14-10-2008. Again the petitioner filed W.P.No.11642/2009 before this Court seeking stay of all further proceedings and this Court granted status quo for a period of four weeks on 16-6-2009 and the draft declaration proposals were submitted to the Collector, Krishna for approval. 17. In reply to para-6 of the affidavit it is stated that it is true that Form-3 notices under Section 5-A of the Act were issued to the land holders/interested persons calling them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer and then Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada on 11-6-2007 and file objections. The petitioner and the other land holder appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and handed over copies of the Writ Petition filed and the interim orders granted by this Court. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada submitted the interim orders of this Court to the Collector, Krishna and returned the draft declaration proposals directing the then Sub-Collector, Vijayawada to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act as the land holders were not heard or had not filed any objections on 11-6-2007. Again Form-3 notices under Section 5-A of the Act were served on the land holders calling them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Vijayawada on 14-10-2008 and objections were filed by all the land holders. The said objections were enquired and reported to the Collector who passed orders under Section 5-A of the Act dated 12-2-2009 in G4/2379/2007 overruling the objections filed by the land holders. 18. The said objections were enquired and reported to the Collector who passed orders under Section 5-A of the Act dated 12-2-2009 in G4/2379/2007 overruling the objections filed by the land holders. 18. In reply to para-7 of the affidavit it is stated that the land measuring Ac.2-34 cents in R.S.No.59 of Yanamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal which is Government land is also being allotted to the beneficiaries under Indiramma Programme. The land acquisition proposals were initiated only after determining that the extent of Ac.2-34 cents in Sy.No.59 is not sufficient for the said purpose. Further, in reply to para-8 of the affidavit it is stated that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued for acquisition of land for a public purpose and hence the land is identified suitable for construction of houses. The notified land is adjacent to the village site and suitable for construction of houses. The petitioner is having an extent of Ac.2-48 cents, Ac.1.00 cents, Ac.1.02 cents, Ac.1.82 cents, Ac.2.00 cents and Ac.8.20 cents in R.S.No.44/1, 44/2, 55/5 and 136/2 respectively totaling to Ac.13.70 cents in Yanamalakuduru village excluding the land under acquisition and hence the petitioner is not a small farmer and had been cultivating paddy in the said lands. 19. In reply to para-9 of the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner’s land is quite suitable for construction of houses and the total extent possessed and enjoyed by the petitioner is Ac.16-52 cents including the land measuring Ac.1.82 cents under acquisition and hence it is not correct to say that the Collector, Krishna/1st respondent had overruled the objections without proper consideration. Further, it is stated in reply to para-10 of the affidavit that the land measuring Ac.1-82 cents in R.S.No.78/2(p) of Yanamalakuduru village, Penamaluru Mandal is quite suitable for construction of houses and it is near to the village sites. Further it is stated that and all agricultural lands around the village site which have more or less the same fertility were examined thoroughly before selecting the proposed land for acquisition. The houses have to be constructed close to the village site so that the basic amenities available in the village may be extended to the new houses easily. The Government from time to time has to frame policies which fit the contemporary conditions and larger interests of the general public. The houses have to be constructed close to the village site so that the basic amenities available in the village may be extended to the new houses easily. The Government from time to time has to frame policies which fit the contemporary conditions and larger interests of the general public. In the process, such policies are framed in which the benefits and development taken is extended to all the people but not to a particular section. The policies taken up may not fit some specific individuals as they feel they are targeted but the actual process is not so. The land acquired will be allotted to the poor and needy eligible beneficiaries who shall construct houses and the petitioner will be compensated duly under the Act. 20. In reply to para-11 of the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner has got a own house and another housing plot with an extent of Ac.0-30 cents. The parents of the petitioner passed away and his sisters already got married and living separately and hence the total extent of land exclusively owned by the petitioner comes to Ac.14-70 cents excluding the land under acquisition which is more than enough for an individual to lead his life. After examining all the objections raised and findings on the objections, the Collector, Krishna had overruled the objections stating that they have no merits. Further, in reply to para-12 of the affidavit it is stated that the objections raised by the petitioner during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on 14-10-2008 were enquired and the report was submitted to the Collector, Krishna for necessary orders. The Collector, Krishna considered and overruled the objections of the petitioner and hence there is no arbitrariness or partiality on the part of the Collector, Krishna in overruling the objections of the petitioner. The orders of the Collector, Krishna are not illegal and not against the provisions of the Act as those orders were issued following the due process of law. Further specific stand had been taken that in the light of dismissal of the prior Writ Petition, the present Writ Petition is barred by principles of res judicata. 21. The objections raised by the writ petitioner and the findings recorded by the 1st respondent already had been specified supra. Further specific stand had been taken that in the light of dismissal of the prior Writ Petition, the present Writ Petition is barred by principles of res judicata. 21. The objections raised by the writ petitioner and the findings recorded by the 1st respondent already had been specified supra. The non-existence of the nexus between the objections in general and specifically the objections 4 and 5 and the findings recorded by the 1st respondent in relation thereto had been argued in elaboration by Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel placed strong reliance on Gandepalli Nuka Raju and others Vs. State of A.P. represented by its Secretary, Revenue (L.A.), Hyderabad and others ( 2009(2) ALT 554 ) wherein the learned Judge of this Court at paras 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 observed: “The 3rd respondent acts as quasi judicial authority, independently, in the context of acquisition of lands. He is under obligation to examine each and every objection independently. Remarks offered by the 4th respondent can, at the most, provide the information vis-a-vis the objection raised by the land owner. Neither the District Collector, nor the R.D.O. can act as adversaries to the land owners. It is true that they have to shoulder the responsibility to implement the Government policies and schemes. At the same time, they cannot feel as though they are pitted against land owners, as adversaries. A line of distinction needs to be maintained between the two functions. Whatever may have been the justification for the 4th respondent in offering the remarks, the 3rd respondent ought to have acted in an objective, independent and dispassionate manner. The paragraph extracted above, does not reflect the proper application of mind, or proper discharge of statutory obligations, on the part of the 3rd respondent. Except that he has summarized the objections, on the one hand, and the remarks on the other, hardly did he apply his mind, or felt the responsibility of ensuring that the rights of the petitioners are protected. It is to be noted that the steps stipulated under Section 5-A of the Act, or the Rules made thereunder, were held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore Vs. V.K. Kangan ( AIR 1975 S.C. 2190 ). ….. ….. The objections raised by the petitioners were not routine in nature. It is to be noted that the steps stipulated under Section 5-A of the Act, or the Rules made thereunder, were held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore Vs. V.K. Kangan ( AIR 1975 S.C. 2190 ). ….. ….. The objections raised by the petitioners were not routine in nature. Some of them are based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, and others are referable to statutory provisions. When the petitioners specifically pleaded that the lands are within the Coastal Regulatory Zone, the 3rd respondent ought to have examined the matter in greater detail. Any lapse in this regard, on his part, would result in violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, prohibiting constructions within the coastal regulatory zone. Before becoming party to such probable violation, the 3rd respondent ought to have examined the matter objectively. The contention of the petitioners that their lands are fertile and low-lying, was, in fact, admitted by the respondents 3 and 4. In overcoming the said objection, both of them felt as though they are the agencies to construct the houses. The opinion of the concerned agency or the beneficiaries, as to the feasibility to construct the houses by filing the land upto 3 feet, ought to have been taken into account. It is not difficult to imagine, the quantity of material needed to fill vast extent of Ac. 16.14 cents of land, by 3 feet, and the cost involved therein. It is not a case where, a fallow waste land is sought to be reclaimed. Before making a fertile three-crop wet land, to an extent of Ac. 16.14 cents, to disappear once for all, the 3rd respondent ought to have applied his mind objectively, in stead of being carried away by the unscientific, non-cost effective and half-baked remarks, offered by the 4th respondent. It is not out of place to mention that East and West Godavari Districts are considered the rice bowls of the State. Permanent eradication of agricultural on a fairly large extent of land would not only affect the livelihood of the owners, but also the food security to the State, in its own way. One after the other acquisitions of this nature, coupled with those, relating to other purposes, would certainly pose a threat to the food scarcity in the near future. Permanent eradication of agricultural on a fairly large extent of land would not only affect the livelihood of the owners, but also the food security to the State, in its own way. One after the other acquisitions of this nature, coupled with those, relating to other purposes, would certainly pose a threat to the food scarcity in the near future. As a matter of fact, the scarcity of the food is already being felt, and the prices of rice are not in the reach of a common man. There could have been some justification in resorting to acquisition of such fertile land, even by incurring huge expenditure towards the cost of the land, as well as the leveling thereof, if there existed genuine necessity. The complaint of the petitioners that the number of genuine beneficiaries in the village is not considerable, virtually remained unanswered. The respondents admitted that vast extents of land acquired in the recent past, for providing house sites, and allotted to beneficiaries, is remaining idle, without even a single structure thereon. The fact that the so-called beneficiaries did not construct house on the allotted land, even after two decades, would only reflect upon the objectivity, indeed, the lack of it; with which, either the beneficiaries were selected, or the land was chosen for acquisition.” 22. Strong emphasis was laid down on para-19 of the said Judgment in particular and would maintain that since this also is a fertile land, the objections raised by the writ petitioner, being sustainable, the acquisition proceedings are to be dropped or they are liable to be quashed. 23. In K. Nooruddin Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( 2009(6) ALT 146 ) this Court at paras 59 to 72 observed: “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 wh acquisition is for ‘public purpose’ or not, prima facie, Government is the best Judge and normally in such matters, a writ ct will not interfere by substituting its judgment for the judgment of the Government. In Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and another (2003) 3 SCC 128 =2002(2) ALT 14.2 (DNSC) 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 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.” In Scindia Employees Union v. State of Maharashtra 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”. In Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Commercial Texes, 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”. In Pandit Jadhulal and others v. 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 Ltd. 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 to 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 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. In R.L. Arora v. 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 v. State of Gujarat and another (AIR 1961 Gujarat 93) also had been relied upon. The decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Motibhai Vithalbhai Pate and another v. State of Gujarat and another (AIR 1961 Gujarat 93) also had been relied upon. In Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others (1971) 1 SCC 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 public purpose, the declaration of the Government that it is made for a public purpose is final, conclusive and not open to challenge. In Devinder Singh and others v. 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 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. But however it was contended by the State that it would be 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. In Amarnath Ashram Trust Society and another v. Governor of U.P. and others (1998) 1 SCC 591 = 1998 ALT Rev.171 (S.C.) 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. In Pratibha Nema and others v. 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.” In W.B. Housing Board Etc. v. Brijendra Prasad Gupta (1997) 6 SCC 207 = 1997(4) ALT 18 (D.N.) 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. In Aflatoon and others v. 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”. In fact the Apex Court in Sooraram Pratap Reddy and others Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others (2008(7) SCJ 641) 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 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. Relating to the availability of the Government land specific stand had been taken. Relating to the availability of the Government land specific stand had been taken. However 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.” 24. Reliance also was placed on R.Veera Raghava Prasad and others Vs. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another ( 2008(2) ALT 136 ) wherein the learned Judge at paras 30 and 31 observed : “A careful reading of Section 3, as a whole, clearly indicates that a person shall not use agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes without paying the stipulated conversion fees and obtaining the permission of the competent authority. The 2006 Act is, therefore, intended to achieve the purpose of user of the agricultural land for nonagricultural purposes through a regulatory mechanism. It is significant to notice that certain categories of lands are exempted from the application of the provisions of this Act and one such category relates to the lands owned by the State Government. The attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners to relate the provisions of the Act to the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 and contend that without conversion the State cannot propose to acquire the agricultural land for putting it to non-agricultural use, has no legal basis at all. In my considered view, the provisions of the two enactments operate in different areas. While the Act empowers the State to acquire private lands for public purposes and also for being used by Companies for the purposes mentioned in Part VII of the said Act, the purposes and objects of 2006 Act are confined only to regulate the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use and prescribe and recover NALA. While the Act empowers the State to acquire private lands for public purposes and also for being used by Companies for the purposes mentioned in Part VII of the said Act, the purposes and objects of 2006 Act are confined only to regulate the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use and prescribe and recover NALA. Neither of the two Acts places any restriction on the State’s power of eminent domain to acquire agricultural land for being used for nonagricultural purposes. That, far from placing such a prohibition on the State, the State is exempted from the application of the provisions of the 2006 Act, is clear from the provisions of Section 7(1) of the said Act. In the impugned notifications, the State, through its functionaries, has proposed to acquire the agricultural lands for being put to non-agricultural purposes. Section 3 of the 2006 Act only prohibits use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes without permission from the competent authority and it does not prohibit the acquisition of agricultural land for future use for non-agricultural purposes. Thus, the conditional prohibition contained in Section 3 would only apply at the stage when a person, who acquired agricultural land seeks to put the same to non-agricultural use. There is, thus, no prohibition, whatsoever, on an individual or the State to acquire agricultural land with a view to use it for non-agricultural purposes in future. Once the State acquires the land under the provisions of the Act, it becomes the owner and it is exempted from the application of the provisions of the 2006 Act by virtue of Section 7(a) of the said Act. In view of such an exemption, the restrictions, if any, placed by the provisions of the 2006 Act on the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes will have no application to the lands so acquired by the State”. 25. This Court had carefully gone through the decisions which had been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkataramana and also the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and in fact in the decision referred (3) supra, this Court had an occasion to refer to the decisions in J.R. Raghupathy etc., Vs. State of A.P. ( AIR 1988 S.C. 1681 ), Gajjela Narasimha Reddy and others Vs. Collector and another ( 2008(5) ALT 233 ), Thandrala Narsaiah and others Vs. State of A.P. ( AIR 1988 S.C. 1681 ), Gajjela Narasimha Reddy and others Vs. Collector and another ( 2008(5) ALT 233 ), Thandrala Narsaiah and others Vs. Pastapurapu Bhadraiah and others ( AIR 1973 A.P. 75 ), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. Darius Shapur Chennai and others (2005(6) ALT 40( S.C.)= (2005) 7 SCC 627 ), Talson Real Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2007 ALT Rev. 82 (S.C.) = 2007 (4) SCJ 254=2007(6) ALT 9.4 (DNSC)), Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Mahabir Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd and others ( (2005) 10 S.C.C. 320 ), Sooraram Pratap Reddy and others Vs. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others (2008(7) SCJ 641), Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar and another ( (2003) 3 SCC 128 =2002(2) ALT 14.2 (DNSC)), Scindia Employees Union Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( (1996) 10 SCC 150 ), Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka and others ((1998) 3 SCC 263), Pandit Jawaharlal and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 1961(2) SCR 459 ), R.L. Arora Vs. State of U.P. and others ( 1964(6) SCR 784 ), Motibhai Vithalbhai Pate and another Vs. State of Gujarat and another (AIR 1961 Gujarat 93), Jage Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ( (1971) 1 SCC 671 ), Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others ( (2008) 1 SCC 728 ), Amarnath Ashram Trust Society and another Vs. Governor of U.P. and others (1998 ALT Rev. 171 (S.C.) = 1998(1) SCC 591 ), Pratibha Nema and others Vs. State of M.P. and others ( (2003) 10 SCC 626 ), W.B. Housing Board Etc. Vs. Brijendra Prasad Gupta ( 1997(4) ALT 18 (D.N.) = (1997) 6 SCC 207 ) and Aflatoon and others Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others ( (1975) 4 SCC 285 ) and recorded elaborate reasons in the light of the definite ratio which had been laid down by the Apex Court. 26. Further, the standard of appreciation of the objections by the competent authority under Section 5-A of the Act may differ from one to another and the arena of justiciability while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this realm, in the considered opinion of this Court is limited. 26. Further, the standard of appreciation of the objections by the competent authority under Section 5-A of the Act may differ from one to another and the arena of justiciability while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this realm, in the considered opinion of this Court is limited. Except in cases of total non-application of mind and total irrelevant reasons, normally such findings arrived at by the competent authority not to be interfered with while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the light of same, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition being devoid of merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. But however in the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.