THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25562 of 2006 ORDER: Questioning the Notification dated 22.09.2006 in Ref.No. (G3)4819/2006 issued by the fourth respondent-Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry Division, East Godavari District, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.0.49 cents each in Sy.No.707/2 of Ramaswamypeta H/o Kanavaram Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, for providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma Programme, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner questions the impugned notification mainly on two grounds namely 1) the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural land and acquisition thereof for non-agricultural purpose, without converting it for such use, is contrary to law and 2) the third respondent- District Collector has no authority to appoint the fourth respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act, and it is only the Government, who can, under Section 3 (c) of the Act, appoint any officer to perform the functions of the Collector, under the Act, and thus the fourth respondent cannot conduct 5-A enquiry under the Act. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that even though notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued, the petitioners refused to receive the same and therefore, the same was served by affixure in the land under acquisition and in the notice board of Grampanchayat, Pallikadiam Village. It is also stated that the third respondent authorized the fourth respondent under Section 3(c) of the Act to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Accordingly, the fourth respondent has issued notice to the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act calling for objections and also submitted a report to the third respondent on 5-A enquiry and to take decision. The second respondent Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada, who is authorized by the third respondent has taken decision and passed orders under Section 5-A(2) of the Act. It is further stated that if the Court feels that the Joint Collector is not competent to issue the order on the objections raised by the petitioners, the Court may permit the third respondent to consider the report of the fourth respondent afresh and issue orders under Section 5-A on the objections filed by the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Though it is the case of the petitioners that the subject land, being agricultural land, cannot be acquired for non-agricultural purpose, without converting it for such use, the fact remains that this Court in R.V.R. Prasad v. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam[1], has categorically held that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non- agricultural purpose and thus the contention of the petitioners to the contrary fails. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the fourth respondent, without being appointed by the Government, cannot conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that no power vests in the Joint Collector to pass orders with regard to the proposed acquisition and it is only the District Collector, who alone is competent to pass orders under Section 5-A of the Act, is concerned, this Court has already considered this issue in the common order dated 29.09.2006 passed in W.P.No.20360 of 2006 and batch and 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. Since in the present case, the Joint Collector has passed the order dated Nil.10.2006, construing that the land owners have no objection to place before the fourth respondent for acquisition of their lands, the same cannot be sustained, in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court. Moreover, the respondents have also specifically pleaded in their counter-affidavit that, if this Court feels that the Joint Collector is not competent to issue an order on the objections of the petitioner, the third respondent- District Collector may be permitted to consider the report of the fourth respondent afresh and pass orders under Section 5-A of the Act. In view of the above settled position of law and the agreed stand taken by the respondents, the impugned order dated Nil.10.2006 passed by the Joint Collector under Section 5-A of the Act is set aside. The third respondent- District Collector shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry, since it is stated that the petitioner has not attended the enquiry, take final decision under Section 5-A of the Act and pass appropriate orders, after considering the objections of the petitioners as well as the report submitted by the fourth respondent. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 18.03.2010 va [1] 2008 (3) ALD 198