HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1230 of 2007 DATE: 15.04.2010 Between: Chirivella Lakshmana Swamy and others … Petitioners and State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue(Land Acquisition), rep. by District Collector, Krishna District, and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1230 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of different extents of land in various survey numbers of Chiruvellapalem Village, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District. The District Collector, Krishna District, 1st respondent herein, published a notification, dated 05.01.2007, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. He appointed the Revenue Divisional officer, Bandar, 2nd respondent herein, as the Land Acquisition Officer. The 1st respondent did not dispense with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The 2nd respondent issued notices, dated 03.01.2007, in Form No.3, to the petitioners proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and invited objections from the petitioners. The same is challenged in this writ petition as being illegal arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating interalia that it is competent for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Reliance is placed upon G.O.Ms.No.822, Revenue (K), dated 16.07.1985. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 4. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether it is competent for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 5. The 1st respondent did not invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act to appoint the 2nd respondent as Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, it became inevitable and necessary to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The 2nd respondent in his capacity as Land Acquisition Officer proposed to conduct enquiry, and accordingly, issued notices to the petitioners. 6. The enquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Act is a step in the direction of forming an opinion as to whether it is necessary to proceed with the acquisition at all, in pursuance of the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is only when the objections raised by the land owners are found to be untenable that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act can be published. Therefore, publication of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act becomes compendious exercise of power which naturally is to be discharged by one and the same authority. 7. As a matter of fact, the Government Issued G.O.Ms.No.1888, Revenue (K), dated 31.12.1984 directing that the powers under the three provisions referred to above and sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the Act can be discharged by the District Collector also instead of the Government. Indirectly it suggests that it is either the Government or the District Collector that can exercise power under those four provisions. 8. In G.O.Ms.No.822, Revenue (K), dated 16.07.1985, the Government directed that the Revenue Divisional Officers and the Mandal Revenue Officers can be permitted to discharge the functions of a Collector. These are in the form of the functions of a Land Acquisition Officer to be designated in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, itself. Though the 2nd respondent was designated as Land Acquisition Officer, he cannot be permitted to discharge the functions under Section 5-A of the Act. At the most, he could have submitted a report to the 1st respondent. The record does not disclose that the order under Section 5-A was passed by the 1st respondent. 9. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notices issued by the 2nd respondent are set aside. It is directed that it shall be competent for the 1st respondent alone to pass orders under Section 5- A of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15th April, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1230 of 2007 (Allowed) 15th April, 2010 CBS