*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.1361 of 2007 % 15.04.2010 # Yepuri Sambasiva Rao … Petitioner and $ The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others … Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner : Sri Y. Subrahmanyam ^ Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. ? Cases referred: 1) 2008(3) ALD Page 198 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1361 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of Acs.2-50 cents of land in Sy.No.389 of Velagaleru, Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was published on 26.10.2006 by the District Collector, Krishna District, 1st respondent herein, for providing house sites to weaker sections. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, 2nd respondent herein, was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Since the urgency clause was not invoked, it became necessary for the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 3. The 2nd respondent issued a notice, dated 06.11.2006, to the petitioner proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner submitted objections on 23.11.2006. Through his endorsement, dated 23.12.2006, the 2nd respondent rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. It is urged that it is not competent for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, much less to reject the objections raised by the petitioner. Another contention of the petitioner is that the notice was given contrary to the provisions of the Act. 4. In their counter-affidavit, the respondents placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.822, Revenue (K), dated 16.07.1985, and contend that it is competent for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. They also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in R.V.R. Prasad Vs. The District Collector, Krishna District,[1] and the one dated 29.09.2006 in W.P.No.20360/2006 and batch rendered by the Hon’ble learned Single Judge of this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 6. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 26.10.2006 by the 1st respondent proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner. Since the urgency clause was not invoked, the necessity to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act arose. Section 5-A of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed for conducting enquiry. Sub-section 1 of Section 5-A of the Act mandates that a notice of not less than 30 days from the date of publication of the notification in the locality, shall be issued to the interested persons. 7. In the instant case, notice under Section 5-A of the Act is dated 06.11.2006 and the enquiry was proposed to be conducted on 23.11.2006. There is a serious flaw in the very notice itself. The mere fact that the petitioner participated in the enquiry does not wipe away the consequences that flow from the serious defect contained in the notice. 8. The second aspect is about the competence of the 2nd respondent i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, to conduct enquiry and to reject the objections. As regards the competence of the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct enquiry, two learned Judges of this Court expressed views in the two cases referred to above that the Revenue Divisional officer is conferred with the power to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.822, Revenue (K), dated 16.07.1985. A perusal of the G.O. discloses that it was issued under Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act and the Revenue Divisional Officers and the Mandal Revenue Officers in their respective jurisdiction were empowered to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act for the purpose of acquisition of lands, for construction, extension or improvements or any dwelling house to the poor, etc. On the basis of this G.O., it is urged that it is competent for a Revenue Divisional Officer or a Mandal Revenue Officer to discharge the functions of a Collector. Here, it is essential to extract Section 3(c) of the Act. It reads: “The expression “Collector” means the Collector of a District, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act.” 9. The word “Collector” means the Collector of a District. The expression “Deputy Commissioner” is employed in other States as regards an officer similar to District Magistrate. 10. The word “Collector” employed in Section 4(1) of the Act has its own significance. The Act empowers him to cause publication of notification under that provision. Therefore, the Collector, as defined under Section 3(c) of the Act, or any Officer equated to him by State Government, must be capable of publishing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 11. Viewed in this context, the conferment of powers of Collectors on the Revenue Divisional Officers or the Mandal Revenue Officers, through G.O.Ms.No.822 dated 16.07.1985, in exercise of powers under Section 3(c) of the Act, is bound to lead several anomalies. If a Collector, meaning thereby the District Collector was competent to publish a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.822, dated 16.07.1985, it must be competent for the R.D.O. or the M.R.O. also to publish such notifications. The inescapable conclusion is that the appointment or delegation, as the case may be, was only for the limited purpose, contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act i.e. to enable them to function as Land Acquisition Officers. 12. There is another way, in which the matter can be examined. The Act was amended by the A.P. State Legislature. A specific provision namely Section 3-A was incorporated. It provides for delegation of powers. It reads: “The State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct that any power conferred or any duty imposed on them by this Act, shall in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercised or discharged by the District Collector.” 13. In exercise of power under this provision, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1888, Revenue (K), dated 31.12.1984. In this, the Government directed that the District Collector shall exercise all the powers conferred on the State Government under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 17(4) of the Act, for the purpose of acquisition of lands, may be for certain categories. The effort here is to highlight the nature of functions that were delegated to the District Collectors, which, otherwise, were to be exercised by the State Government. The G.O. suggests that the powers under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 17(4) of the Act are to be exercised by one and the same authority. 14. What emerges from the discussion undertaken above is that by no stretch of imagination, the R.D.O. or the M.R.O. can be conferred with the power to publish notification under Section 4(1) of the Act nor to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. The mention of Collector in sub-section 2 of Section 5-A is in the same context as was done in sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Act. It does not appear from the scheme of the Act that the authority who cannot publish notification under Section 4(1) of the Act can conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The power conferred upon M.R.O. or R.D.O., as the case may be, is for discharging the functions referable to Section 4(2), Section 11 etc. viz., to function as Land Acquisition Officer. 15. Be that as it may, even if the 2nd respondent in this case i.e. R.D.O. is to be equated to a Collector under Section 5(2) of the Act, his duty is only to submit a report to the principal authority, by whom, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. In this case, the District Collector i.e. 1st respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is for him, to satisfy himself as to whether there is any substance in the objections raised by the owner of the land and to form the opinion whether or not to proceed with the acquisition. However, the 2nd respondent himself formed an opinion and rejected the contentions of the land owner. 16. Viewed from any angle, the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement, dated 23.12.2006, made by the 2nd respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15th April, 2010. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (b/o) CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1361 of 2007 (Allowed) 15th April, 2010 CBS [1] 2008(3) ALD Page 198