THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.157 of 2007 ORDER: The District Collector, Vizianagarm, 2nd respondent herein issued notification, dated 22.04.2006, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire Ac.21.99 cents of land in Chintalabelagam and Sivaramarajapuram Villages, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District, for the purpose of providing house sites to the displaced persons in Thotapalli Barrage Project. The lands of the petitioners were also included. Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The petitioners filed W.P.No.11703 of 2006 feeling aggrieved by the said notification. The writ petition was disposed of on 15.06.2006 directing that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held. A notice inviting objections under Section 5-A of the Act was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, 3rd respondent herein. The petitioners and others submitted their representations/objections. Through an endorsement, dated 04.10.2006, the 3rd respondent rejected the objections and observed that there is no other alternative except to proceed with the acquisition. This was followed by the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 27.10.2006. The petitioners challenge the various proceedings referred to above. It is stated that the 3rd respondent does not have jurisdiction to conduct enquiry much less to take a final decision under Section 5-A(2) of the Act. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that though the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted by the 3rd respondent, a final decision was taken by the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents initially proposed to acquire the land by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. With the intervention by this Court, conducting of enquiry became inevitable. Section 5-A of the Act stipulates broad guidelines to be followed in the context of holding enquiry thereunder. A perusal of sub-section (2) thereof discloses that it is the Collector that must conduct the enquiry and submit a report to the appropriate Government. Assuming that since the notification is issued by the District Collector, he can be equated to the appropriate Government, it may become permissible for the Land Acquisition Officer to conduct enquiry. However, in such cases also, the ultimate decision in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act must be taken by the District Collector, who has issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent i.e., Land Acquisition Officer has not only conducted the enquiry but also took the final decision on the objections raised by the petitioners. The same is evident from the endorsement, dated 04.10.2006. It is not the report submitted by the District Collector. On the other hand, it is a specific order dealing with the objections and rejecting the same. Therefore, there is a serious defect in the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act. That defect would lead to annulment of the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on 27.10.2006 is set aside. It is left open to the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 02.06.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.157 of 2007 Date: 02.06.2010 JSU