THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2334 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of small extents of land in survey No.389 of H.Mutyalampadu Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published by the District Collector, Krishna, the 1st respondent, proposing to acquire the said lands for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor. The 2nd respondent was appointed as the Land Acquisition Officer. The notices proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act were issued. In response to the same, the petitioners submitted their representations, raising several grounds. The 2nd respondent referred the representations of the petitioners, for enquiry to the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 3rd respondent. After receiving the report from the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent made an endorsement, dated 23.12.2006, overruling the objections raised by the petitioners. Consequently, the 1st respondent issued a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act vide proceedings, dated 29.01.2007. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent made a mechanical observation and endorsement just approving whatever the 3rd respondent said, and the 1st respondent, in turn, published the declaration, without even referring to the grounds mentioned by them. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the prescribed procedure was followed and every objection raised by the petitioners was scrutinized objectively. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and leaned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. After the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued in respect of the lands of the petitioners, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted. A perusal of Section 5-A of the Act discloses that, whenever the Government issues appropriate notifications, the Collector would be the competent to conduct enquiry under that Section. If the notification is issued by the Collector himself, the Land Acquisition Officer can be said to be competent to conduct the enquiry. The manner in which the enquiry must be conducted is mentioned in sub-section (2) thereof. Not only the objections must be considered in detail, but also enquiry must be conducted, if necessary. This may involve spot inspection or personal hearing. In the instant case, the objections raised under Section 5 of the Act were received by the 2nd respondent. He did nothing more than forwarding the representations of the petitioners to the 3rd respondent. The latter, in turn, offered his remarks on various aspects. On receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent made an endorsement, dated 23.12.2006. After extracting the points urged by the petitioners and the remarks offered by the 3rd respondent, what all the 2nd respondent said is, “The allegations made by the land holders namely Yepuri Samba Siva Rao, Yepuri Naga Malleswara Rao, Yepuri Rama Tulasamma, are totally false, faraway from the truth and they are all baseless and they are liable to be overruled.” There is hardly nothing to indicate that the 2nd respondent has applied his mind to the facts of the case, much less conducted enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A(2) of the Act. It must not be forgotten that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is the only remedy available to a citizen vis-à-vis the power of eminent domain vested in the Government. The enquiry conducted, in this regard, must be objective and the views expressed therein must be reasonable and not capricious. Further, the 1st respondent does not appear to have bestowed his attention to the facts of the case. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published almost in a mechanical way as soon as the endorsement, dated 23.12.2006, is made. The steps taken by respondents 2 and 3 do not accord with the letter and spirit of Sections 5-A and 6 of the Act. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. It is, however, directed that, in case the 1st respondent intends to proceed with the matter further, he shall cause enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, to be made strictly and take further steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31.05.2010. GJ