Judgment : 1. These two Writ Petitions which involve common questions of fact and law are heard and being disposed of together. 2. I have heard Sri. Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 3. Certain agricultural lands belonging to the petitioners were notified for acquisition for providing house sites to landless poor persons. In pursuance of the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) the petitioners filed their objections. As these objections have been rejected by respondent No.2 by his order dated 22-4-2012 with the cryptic reasoning that in Chandole village, convenient land belonging to the Government is not available, the petitioners filed these Writ Petitions. 4. The main objection put forth by the petitioners is that the lands proposed to be acquired are agricultural wet lands and that there are vast extents of Government lands available for acquisition. Along with the Writ Petitions, the petitioners have filed a list of Government lands which were assigned to different persons. In view of the same, this Court has adjourned the case to enable the learned Government Pleader to get instructions. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has got instructions and placed before the Court the combined sketch. 5. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader has not denied the availability of various dry lands belonging to the Government, some of which were assigned to third parties. Along with the reply affidavit, the petitioners have filed photographs, a perusal of which would show that a canal runs to the right of their lands and a road is also situated by the side of the canal. To the right of the canal and the road, Kattivalla Malapalli village is situated and surrounding the said village, several lands are shown to be in existence. As per the list filed by the petitioners, S.Nos.304-7, 6, 8-B and 8F comprise about Ac.9-00. According to the statement filed by the petitioners, these are assigned lands. 6. As noted hereinbefore, the learned Government Pleader has not specifically disputed the statement filed by the petitioners containing the details of the assigned lands. In my opinion, when dry lands of the Government, assigned or unassigned, are available, I do not find any justification for acquiring the agricultural wet lands of the petitioners for providing house sites to landless poor persons. In my opinion, when dry lands of the Government, assigned or unassigned, are available, I do not find any justification for acquiring the agricultural wet lands of the petitioners for providing house sites to landless poor persons. Even according to the Government policy, as far as possible, acquisition of agricultural wet lands needs to be avoided, for, the Nation is already facing scarcity of food grains. With the acquisition of more and more agricultural lands and increase in population, shortage of foods grains will become more acute. This is not in the National interests. On the facts of these case, I am of the opinion that acquisition of the wet lands of the petitioners, when dry lands near the village are available, cannot be justified. Even in the impugned order rejecting the petitioners’ objections, except stating that the Government lands are not convenient, no details whatsoever in this regard have been given. 7. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned acquisition proceedings are quashed. This order however does not preclude the respondents from acquiring dry lands available in the village. 8. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed.