THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2617 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are owners of different extents of land in different survey numbers situated at Pedaravuru Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. The first respondent published a notification dated 11.09.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’ for short) proposing to acquire the said land for providing house sites to the poor. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, second respondent herein, was authorised to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. On receipt of notice under Section 5 of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections. Thereafter, the first respondent published declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act on 03.02.2007. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. It is stated that there was no affective hearing on consideration at the stage of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that result of consideration of their objections was not communicated to the petitioners at all. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to disclose that the final decision to proceed with acquisition is taken by the appropriate Government or the District Collector. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that every objection raised by the petitioners was considered in the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. A copy of the report dated 16.01.2007 submitted by the third respondent to the first respondent is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The principal ground urged by the petitioners is about the validity of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and the decision making process leading to publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is no doubt true that the second respondent conducted enquiry and noted the contentions of the petitioners. One significant defect, which is noticed in the report, is that the second respondent has entrusted the enquiry, or at least a substantial part thereof, to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tenali, third respondent herein. The same is impermissible in law. Assuming that the report dated 16.01.2007 is otherwise legal and tenable, the decision whether or not to proceed with the acquisition and to publish declaration under Section 6 of the Act ought to have been taken by the appropriate Government. In the context of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act having been published by the first respondent, he may be treated as a substitute for the appropriate Government. In such an event, the decision in this regard ought to have been taken by himself. A perusal of the report dated 16.01.2007 submitted by the second respondent discloses that he has himself decided to continue the proceedings. Added to that, the record is silent as to whether the first respondent has taken any decision at all. Hence, there is a serious lapse in the entire proceedings leading to publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 07th June, 2010 GHN