THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.23649 of 2006 DATED: 22.03.2010 Between: Tata Chandrasekhar Rao .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.35/2 (45/3 part) situated at Seetharamapuram Village, Machilipatnam Mandal of Krishna District. It is his case that, without publishing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), in two local daily newspapers, as required under the Act, and without conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the 1st respondent- District Collector, Krishna District, straight away issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on 14.07.2006, which was published in Janata Daily Newspaper on 29.07.2006, for acquisition of Ac.1.02 cents of his land, along with other lands, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. The petitioner states that his land is double crop wet land and hence not suitable for construction of houses and, moreover, if the proposed acquisition is permitted, it will not be possible for him to cultivate the remaining land of 0.98 cents, as there will not be ingress and egress for the said land nor any irrigation facility will be there. He further states that, surprisingly, after issuance of the said declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the 2nd respondent- Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, issued notice under Section 5-A of the Act, on 01.09.2006, stating that 4 (1) notification was published in the District Gazette on 05.07.2006 and asked him to submit his objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition of his land, and thereupon, he sent his objections on 18.09.2006 by Registered Post. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, without considering his objections and without passing any orders under Section 5-A of the Act, the 1st respondent issued another declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on 20.10.2006, which was published in Hindu Daily Newspaper on 02.11.2006, for acquisition of his land, and consequently, the 2nd respondent issued notices under Sections 9 (1), 9 (3) and 10 of the Act, asking him to attend the award enquiry. Assailing this action of the respondents in proceeding to acquire his land, without publishing 4(1) notification in two local daily newspapers and without passing orders under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner filed this writ petition, seeking to declare the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents as arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that in the inspection conducted by the authorities, three acres of land, including the land of the petitioner, in Seetharamapuram Village, was found suitable for acquisition, and, thereafter, notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued by the 1st respondent, which was published in the District Gazette on 05.07.2006 and in Prajasakthi and Udaya Bharatam, local daily newspapers, on 08.07.2006 and 09.07.006 respectively. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent issued notice under Section 5-A of the Act, on 01.09.2006, requiring the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 20.09.2006 and submit his objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition, and the petitioner, having received the said notice, did not appear before the 2nd respondent, but however, sent his objections through post. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent, having considered the objections raised by the petitioner and found them untenable, rejected the same, and, thereafter, the 1st respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on 20.10.2006, which was published in the District Gazette on 24.10.2006 and in Hindu and Janata, local daily newspapers, on 02.11.2006. Consequently, the 2nd respondent issued notices under Sections 9 (1), 9 (3) and 10 of the Act, on 24.10.2006, asking the petitioner to attend award enquiry on 10.11.2006, but, without attending the said enquiry, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Though it is case the of the petitioner that the 4 (1) notification was not published in two local daily newspapers, as required under the Act, the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, have categorically stated that the 4 (1) notification was published in the District Gazette on 05.07.2006 and in Prajasakthi and Udaya Bharatam, local daily newspapers, on 08.07.2006 and 09.07.006 respectively. Except stating that those two newspapers have no circulation in his locality, the petitioner, in his reply-affidavit, did not dispute the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents with respect to publication of 4 (1) notification in two local daily newspapers as well as in the Official Gazette, as required under the Act. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the objections raised by him to the proposed acquisition, pursuant to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 5-A of the Act, have not been considered, is concerned, the respondents have taken a stand that the 2nd respondent has considered the objections raised by the petitioner and rejected them as untenable, and thereafter Section 6 declaration was issued. In this regard, it is relevant to note that this Court, in the common order dated 29.09.2006 passed in W.P.No.20360 of 2006 and batch, held that the limited power given to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5-A of the Act is to submit a report on the objections raised by the interested persons to the proposed acquisition to the District Collector, who alone is competent to take final decision under Section 5-A of the Act. In the present case, the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer himself rejected the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act and, thus, acted beyond his limited power, which cannot be sustained in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the consequential notices under Sections 9 (1), 9 (3) and 10 of the Act are set aside. It is made clear that, if the land of petitioner is required to be acquired, the respondents shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, in accordance with law, duly issuing notice to the petitioner and considering his objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 22nd March, 2010 IBL