THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.25267 of 2006 ORDER: By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings, dated 21.11.2006, issued by the second respondent, namely, the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner states that the third respondent, namely, the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire his land to provide house sites to the poor and weaker sections under INDIRAMMA Scheme. That pursuant to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner claims to have submitted his objections, which were rejected by the second respondent through the impugned order, 21.11.2006. Hence, he filed present writ petition contending that proper opportunity was not given to him during the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, that in spite of availability of alternative lands, the respondents are proposing to the acquire his land and that names of ineligible persons were also included in the list of beneficiaries. This Court, while issuing Rule nisi on 06.12.2006, directed the respondents not to act upon and take possession of the subject land. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government to provide house sites/houses to the poor under INDIRAMMA Scheme in Damireddypally Village, the respondents, after conducting inspection, found that the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 in Survey Nos.9/1, 9/7 and 9/10 belonging to the petitioner is suitable for the said purpose. That as there are no suitable alternative Government lands, the respondents have issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 06.10.2006 and thereafter, on 20.10.2006 a notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his objections, if any, and pursuant thereto, the petitioner has submitted his objections. After considering the objections filed by the petitioner and remarks offered by the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, the second respondent-Joint Collector has passed the impugned order rejecting objections raised by the petitioner. In the counter, the respondents have categorically stated that there are no suitable alternative Government lands and that after a thorough enquiry, the respondents have prepared the list of beneficiaries. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to pass an order rejecting the objections, but not the Joint Collector, as was done in the present case. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has not disputed the legal position. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the land belonging to the petitioner was sought to be acquired by the respondents for providing house sites to the weaker sections under INDIRAMMA Scheme and accordingly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. Thereafter, notice as required under Section 5-A of the Act was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition and pursuant thereto, the petitioner has even submitted his explanation. Thereupon, through the impugned order, the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada, after considering the objections and the remarks of the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry thereon, has rejected the same and directed the Sub- Collector, Rajahmundry to submit draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and obtained interim orders. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to reject the objections raised under Section 5-A of the Act, but not the Joint Collector. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the impugned order was passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act, which cannot be sustained. Therefore, on that ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings, dated 21.11.2006, issued by the second respondent, namely, the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further in the matter, if they so choose, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:17.03.2010 VGB