THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17472 of 2007 Date: 26.02.2008 Between: Kantipudi Raghavendra Rao … Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P., Department of Revenue Hyderabad. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.Yuvaraj Counsel for respondents: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17472 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification dated 30.7.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) whereby an extent of Ac.1.55 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.198/4 of Mortha village, Undrajvaram mandal, West Godavari district is proposed to be acquired as contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short “the 2006 Act”). At the hearing, Sri B.Yuvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions, namely, 1) that under Section 5A of the Act it is the appropriate Government which is competent to dispose of the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act and that in the instant case respondent No.2 disposed of the objections vide his order dated 5.3.2007, and 2) that the proposal to acquire agricultural lands of the petitioner without their conversion under the provisions of the 2006 Act is illegal. With regard to the first contention, the State Government is empowered under Section 3A of the Act to delegate any of its functions under the Act to the District Collector concerned. By G.O.Ms.No.1888 Revenue Department, dated 31.12.1984, the Government of Andhra Pradesh delegated the powers exercisable under Sections 4, 5A, 6 and sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act to the District Collectors. In view of the same respondent No.2 had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. This contention is therefore, rejected. With regard to the second contention, the issue is no longer res integra in view of judgment dated 28.12.2007 of this Court in W.P.No.18881 of 2006 and Batch wherein an identical contention has been rejected. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the petitioner had been bonafide pursuing the writ petition, he could not file the objections to the notice issued under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act. He submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file his objections and participate in the award enquiry. I find this request of the learned counsel reasonable. The petitioner is permitted to file his objections within a period of three weeks from today and on receipt of such objections the respondents shall give the petitioner notice of personal hearing, before passing the award. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.22371 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:26.02.2008 Note: Issue c.c. in one week. B/o. mdaa