THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.21091 of 2006 DATED: 25.03.2010 Between: V. Ramesh and others .. Petitioners And The District Collector, Krishna District, At Machilipatnam and another. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of small extents of land in Sy.Nos.161/1P and 161/2P situated at Manikonda Village, Unguturu Mandal of Krishna District. While so, the 1st respondent- District Collector, Krishna District, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), which was published in Vaartha Daily Newspaper on 10.09.2006, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners for providing house sites to weaker sections. The petitioners state that, in spite of their being small farmers, the respondents proposed to acquire their lands due to political pressure, leaving the government lands and other suitable lands available in the village. They further state that, under the impugned notification, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District, to perform the functions under Section 5-A of the Act, but in fact, the 1st respondent has no such power to delegate his powers. However, the petitioners state that they have submitted their objections to the proposed acquisition to the 2nd respondent and also attended the 5-A enquiry. 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 11.10.2006, granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notification. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations of the petitioners, and reiterating the contents therein, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents submits that the revenue records reveal that the petitioners are not small 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, therefore, by exercising such power, the 2nd respondent has called for the objections of the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. 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 stay granted by this Court, though enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act was conducted, no orders are passed pursuant thereto. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. Though the petitioners contended that they are small farmers and therefore their lands cannot be acquired, the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have categorically denied that contention and indicated the extents of land owned by the petitioners as per the revenue records, which would show that the petitioners are not small farmers. This stand taken by the respondents is not denied by the petitioners by filing reply-affidavit. So far as the contention of the petitioners with regard to the power of 2nd respondent to conduct 5-A enquiry is concerned, 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, and thus no fault can be found with the 2nd respondent conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Further, this Court, in R.V.R. Prasad v. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam[1], 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. For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notification under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be interfered with, but however, as the 5-A enquiry was conducted way back in the year 2006 and no final orders are passed pursuant thereto, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “ If the lands of the petitioners are still required to be acquired, the respondents shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to submit their objections to the proposed acquisition 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 25th March, 2010 IBL [1] 2008 (3) ALD 198