THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT APPEAL No.1535/2003 Date of Order: 19-01-2011 Between: 1. Rachamsetti Nageswar Rao and others ..Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, Guntur District and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT APPEAL No.1535/2003 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court dt. 8-7-2003 in WP No.27731/1995 dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners questioning the action of the respondents in proceedings with the land acquisition proceedings without conducting the enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in spite of receipt of objections of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set-aside the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 24-9- 1994 by holding the same is not for the public purpose. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners and also learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Facts, which are not in dispute, are as under: Notification dt. 29-8-1994 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire land comprised in S.Nos.372/1A, 372/2 and 372/3A ad-measuring about Acs.3-83 guntas for the purpose of providing house sites to backward classes of Kanagala village of Cherukupalli Mandal was published in the Guntur District Gazette dt. 31-8-1994, followed by Krishna Patrika daily on 21-9-1994 and Udayam daily on 22-9-1994. In the notification under Sec. 4(1), the Collector authorizes the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali to perform the functions of the Collector under Sec. 5-A of the Act. The main case of the petitioners is that on calling objections by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, under Sec. 5-A of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections. On filing an objection petition by one R.Nageswara Rao, the same was referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherukupalli, for enquiry, who submitted his report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer, who over ruled the objections submitted draft declaration proposals to the Collector, Guntur on 6-10-1995, and the same was approved on 9-10-1995 and published in the Guntur District Gazette dt. 10-10-1995; Visalanddra daily on 1-11-1995 and Krishna Patrika daily on 30-10-1005. Therefore, entire proceedings, namely, submission of the report, and hearing objections by the Mandal Revenue Officer is contrary to the authorization conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer through the impugned Sec. 4(1) notification, who over ruled the objections and submitted a report to the Collector recommending publication of the draft declaration, and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it was stated that pursuant to the notice issued under Sec. 5-A of the Act on 27-6- 1995, it was published in the locality on 1-7-1995 The first writ petitioner filed objections on 3-8-1995. The objection petition filed by one R.Nageswara Rao has been enquired with by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherukupalli, who submitted his report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer agreeing with the remarks of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherukupalli, over ruled the objections and submitted DD proposals to the Collector who approved the same on 9-10-1995 and published in the Guntur District Gazette dt. 10-10-1995 followed by Visalanddra daily on 1-11-1995 and Krishna Patrika daily on 30-10-1005. The objection petition was sent to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherukupalli for enquiry and report, who submitted a detailed report on all the points in the objection petitions. Since the objection petition was enquired as per the provisions of the Act by the Revenue Divisional Officer, issuance of draft declaration do not suffer from any illegality. It was further stated that by G.O.Ms.No.96 dt. 20-1-1976, the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 3 of the Act appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildars and Revenue Block Development Officers in their respective jurisdictions to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act, and Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to conduct enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act. A learned single Judge after taking into consideration the judgment of this court in CH. VENKATARATNAM V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1], wherein it was held that the Tahsildar has ample jurisdiction to conduct enquiry under Sec. 5A and submit the report to the Collector, who, in his turn, was delegated with the powers of the Government under Sec. 3A read with G.O.Ms.No.1378 Rev.(K) dated 15-10-1975 to take a decision on the report, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order. In the case on hand, it is not the Collector who took a decision on the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer but the Revenue Divisional Officer, who received report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, over ruled the objections and submitted DD proposals to the Collector who approved the same, and got published in newspapers. This court by order dt. 20-9-1999 passed in WP No.304/1991 on a similar facts held that the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam exercising the powers of the Collector under Sec. 5-A of the Act forwarded the objections of the petitioner for the comments of the Urban Development Authority and its Managing Director is stated to have “over ruled” the objections raised by the petitioner and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to go ahead with the acquisition of the lands and it is for the Collector to submit a report containing his recommendations for either rejecting the objections or accepting the objections. Since the Collector who exercised the statutory duty under sec. 5-A of the Act cannot abdicate his functions in favour of any person or authority. Since the entire procedure adopted is not only erroneous but also contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of the Act, learned Judge allowed the writ petition quashing the Sec.4(1) notification. Admittedly, the Collector has not over ruled the objections nor applied his mind to the objections on the report received from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherukupalli, who is not authorized to conduct enquiry. It is the Revenue Divisional Officer who is authorized under 4 (1) notification to conduct enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act, but not the Mandal Revenue Officer. Since conducting enquiry and overruling objections is not only contrary to the provisions of the Act but also contrary to the authorization conferred under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, the draft declaration pursuant to the issuance of 4(1) notification is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. On quashing draft declaration issued under section 6 of the Act, the Government cannot now issue a fresh declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act, as this court directed status quo with regard to the possession. Since there is no stay between issuance of notification and declaration for exclusion of stay period, notification under Sec. 4(1) is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned single Judge of this court dt.8-7-2003 passed in WP No.27731/1995. Consequently, WP shall stand allowed quashing Sec. 4(1) notification and declaration issued under Sec. 6 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _____​________ C.V.RAMULU, J. Dt.19-1-2011 KMR [1] 1985 (2) ALT 84 (NRC)