THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23473 of 2007 Date: 22.02.2008 Between: Polisetty Nagamalleswara Rao And another … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Guntur district. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy. Counsel for respondents: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23473 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification dated 27.2.2007 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and declaration dated 24.10.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act. Heard Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. The extent of Ac.1.14 cents and 75 cents comprised in survey Nos.243-1A and 254-A respectively of Peteru village, Repalle mandal, Guntur district were notified for acquisition. In response to the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act, the petitioners filed their objections. The grievance of the petitioners is that without giving an opportunity of personal hearing and rejecting the objections filed by them, declaration under section 6 of the Act has been published. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Tenali Division, Guntur district filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated as under: “…The 1st petitioner herein has attended the 5A enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali on 16.4.2007 and filed his objection petition stating that “he has established Nayagara paper bags and files manufacturing industry at Repalle 30 years back and now he is proposing to establish a branch industry at the outskirts at Peteru village and that he purchased the proposed land recently and taking steps for construction of the factory building. He requested to eliminate his land from the proposed acquisition. He also stated that alternative land would be provided to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in place of the proposed land for house site purpose at the nearby locality”. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali has enquired into the said objections and found that the petitioner No.1 has not proposed any alternative land and also avoiding in the matter and submitted a report to the District Collector for taking a decision on the 5A enquiry. Thereupon the District Collector after considering the objections of the petitioners and after perusing the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali has instructed to give an endorsement to the objections as the objections are not tenable. The said endorsement has also been communicated to the petitioners through the Tahsildar, Repalle.” Leaving aside the controversy whether the petitioners attended the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act or not, in the face of the admission of the respondents as contained in the above re-produced portion of the counter affidavit, publication of Section 6 declaration cannot be sustained, because under Section 5A read with Section 3A of the Act, it is the District Collector who is competent to pass an order. From the admission made by respondent No.2, the Collector did not pass any order and on the other hand he instructed respondent No.2 to give an endorsement to the petitioners to the effect that the objections are not tenable. This is wholly unsustainable. It is incumbent upon respondent No.1 to apply his mind to the objections filed by the petitioners and the report, if any submitted by respondent No.2 and pass a detailed order thereon. Since the procedure followed by the respondents is contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act, the impugned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is liable to be and is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and respondent No.1 shall thereafter pass appropriate order on the objections of the petitioners. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30594 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22.02.2008 mdaa