THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.20218 of 2006 DATED: 10.03.2010 Between: Thirumalasetti Jagan Mohana Rao and another .. Petitioners And District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Questioning the notification dated 11.08.2006 in Rc.No.G4/3439/2006 issued by the 1st respondent- District Collector, Krishna District, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners in an extent of 0.90 cents and Ac.1.25 cents respectively in R.S.No.234/2P of Tarigoppula Village, Unguturu Mandal of Krishna District, for providing house sites to weaker sections, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The petitioners state that they are small and marginal farmers, eking out their livelihood cultivating the subject lands proposed for acquisition, and, except the said lands, there is no other source of livelihood for them. They further state that, pursuant to the impugned notification, the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District, issued notice dated 25.08.2006, under Section 5-A of the Act, calling for their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition, but, in fact, the 2nd respondent has no power to call for the objections and it is only the 1st respondent- District Collector, who shall call for objections and to whom the objections shall be made. However, the petitioners state that they have submitted their objections to the proposed acquisition to the 2nd respondent, on 14.09.2006. They also state that the proposed acquisition of their agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose, without converting the lands for such use, is contrary to law. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 28.09.2006, passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.25552 of 2006 to the effect that there shall be status quo regarding possession as on that date insofar as the land comprised in Sy.No.234/2P belonging to the petitioners and if possession is already taken, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed further. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments reiterating the case of the petitioners. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents submits that the revenue records reveal that the petitioners’ family owns Ac.16.05 cents in Tarigoppula Village and, therefore, they cannot claim to be small/marginal farmers. She further submits that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.822 Revenue (K) Department dated 16.07.1985, empowering the Revenue Divisional Officers and the Mandal Revenue Officers in their respective jurisdiction to perform the functions of the Collector, under the Act, for purpose of acquisition of lands for the construction, extension or improvements of any dwelling house to the poor and for other purposes specified therein, and in view of the same, the contention of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer has no authority to issue notice under Section 5-A of the Act, cannot be upheld. She also submits that as per the precedential decisions of this Court, the conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose, before their acquisition, is not necessary. It is further submitted that in view of the interim orders of status quo granted by this Court, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act could not be concluded. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. From the respective pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the lands of the petitioners have been proposed to be acquired, by issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, for providing house sites to weaker sections. Pursuant to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections and, thereafter, they filed the present writ petition, questioning the acquisition proposed, on the grounds that they are small farmers, that the 2nd respondent is not competent to call for objections under Section 5-A of the Act and the lands cannot be acquired for non-agricultural purpose, without converting them to non-agricultural use. In view of the interim orders of this Court, the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act could not be concluded. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners are not small farmers and they own Ac.16.05 cents in Tarigoppula Village. This stand taken by the respondents is not denied by the petitioners by filing reply-affidavit. This apart, as can be seen from G.O.Ms.No.822 Revenue (K) Department dated 16.07.1985, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer were empowered to perform the functions of the Collector, under the Act, for the purpose of acquisition of lands for construction of dwelling house to the poor and for other purposes indicated therein. Thus, it cannot be said that the notice issued by the 2nd respondent, under Section 5-A of the Act, is vitiated on the ground of jurisdiction. Further, this Court, in various decisions, has categorically held that acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non-agricultural purpose, and thus the contention of the petitioners to the contrary also cannot be accepted. In these circumstances and as the proceedings have been stalled at the stage of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents shall conclude the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 10th March, 2010 IBL