HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.762 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of Ac.1-06 cents of land each in Sy.No.101/3 and 101/4 respectively of Madduru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. Those pieces of land were proposed to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites under a scheme. The District Collector, Krishna, 1st respondent herein , issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act) on 28.05.2006. The urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and enquiry under section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The petitioners filed W.P.No.13057 of 2006 feeling aggrieved by the same. The writ petition was disposed of on 29.06.2006 directing that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held. 2. After disposal of the writ petition referred to above, the Revenue Divisional officer, Vijayawada, 2nd respondent herein, who was designated as Land Acquisition Officer, issued notices to the petitioners proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Petitioners, in turn, submitted their objections. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order, on 22.12.2006, rejecting the objections. This was followed by publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 06.01.2007 by the 1st respondent. The petitioners challenge the proceedings initiated vis a vis their lands. According to them, it is not competent for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, much less to reject the objections. They plead that the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is vitiated, on account of the said lapse. 3. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer, 2nd respondent, is conferred with the power to conduct enquiry and that taking his report into account, the 1st respondent published the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 4. Heard Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 5. The 1st respondent published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners for the purpose of house sites to the poor. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Much before the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13057 of 2006. The writ petition was disposed of directing that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held. 6. Sub-section 2 of Section 5-A of the Act directs that it is the District Collector that shall invite objections, consider the same and pass appropriate orders, either accepting or rejecting the objections raised by the land owners. No mention is made to the Land Acquisition Officer in that provision. Even otherwise, it is the authority, who issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, that shall determine the objections raised by the land owners and arrive at his own conclusion whether or not proceed with the acquisition. In the instant case, though the 1st respondent issued notification, the 2nd respondent has taken upon himself the function of conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and rejecting all the objections raised by the petitioners. Such a step is contrary to the very scheme under the Act. The satisfaction as to the continued necessity of the acquisition, despite the objections raised by the owners of the land, is to be arrived at by the authority which issued the notification. The powers conferred upon the Land Acquisition Officer are limited, such as those for conducting spot inspections, issuing proceedings for taking possession of land, and passing of award, etc. Admittedly, in the instant case, the objections raised by the petitioners were rejected by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the endorsement made by him cannot be sustained in law. The subsequent declaration published on 06.01.2007 is equally vitiated, on account of the fact that the 1st respondent did not deal with the objections raised by the owners of the land. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the endorsement, dated 22.12.2006, made by the 2nd respondent, and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on 06.01.2007 are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15th April, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.762 of 2007 (Allowed) 15th April, 2010 CBS