IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25381 of 2006 Between: 1 Dwarampudi Krishna Reddy S/o Sri. Venkata Reddy r/o Polamuru (V) Anaparthi (M) East Godavari District. 2 Dwarampudi Venkata Reddy S/o Sri Vanumu Reddy r/o Polamuru (V) Anaparthi (M) East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada-533001. 2 The Joint-Collector, East Godavari district at kakinada-533001. 3 The Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry-533101, East Godavari District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Anaparthi-533342, East Godavari district. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the acquisition of lands of the petitioners of an extent of Ac. 2.10 cents in Sy.No. 187/2, an extent of Ac. 0.64 cents in Sy. No. 187/3 and an extent of Ac. 0.82 cents in Sy. No. 212/1 belonging to the 1st petitioner and an extent of Ac. 0.62 cents in Sy. No.212/3 and an extent of Ac. 0.32 cents in Sy.No. 212/4 belonging to the 2nd petitioner situated in polamuru Village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District pursuant to the Notification issued U/Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act Published in News Paper on 28-11-2006 vide Ref. G3/1954/2006, dated 15-11-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings against the petitioner's land in this regard and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 25381 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 2.10 cents in Sy.No. 187/2, an extent of Ac. 0.64 cents in Sy. No. 187/3 and an extent of Ac. 0.82 cents in Sy. No. 212/1 belonging to the 1st petitioner and an extent of Ac. 0.62 cents in Sy. No.212/3 and an extent of Ac. 0.32 cents in Sy.No. 212/4 belonging to the 2nd petitioner situated in polamuru Village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 04-10-2006 as well as the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 28-11-2006 is arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, is not competent authority to consider and dispose of the objections lodged by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in identical circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P.No.23811 of 2006 and batch by order dated 12-06-2007 holding that the Joint Collector cannot exercise the power, authority or jurisdiction to take a decision as is required to be taken under Section 5-A(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the orders impugned in the said writ petitions were quashed and the writ petitions were disposed of leaving it open to the competent authority to take a decision in accordance with law. The learned Government Pleader has not disputed the fact that the petitioners herein are also similarly situated. In the circumstances, following the order in W.P.No.23811 of 2006 and batch, the writ petition is disposed of hereby setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28-11-2006 and leaving it open to the competent authority to pass orders afresh following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 28-07-2008 KLP