IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3016 of 2001 Between: Pyda Lakshmi & others ..... PETITIONERS AND Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, Parishram bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1:SRI K.V.SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3016 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire the land of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.No.76/1 of Peddapuram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District, through notiﬁcation dated 22-01- 2000 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and to set aside the consequential notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. Heard Sri M.V.S Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned counsel representing respondent No.1. The above mentioned extent of land was proposed to be acquired under the impugned notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of development of Industrial area by respondent No.1-Corporation. The acquisition proceedings are primarily challenged on three grounds, namely, (i) While issuing notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, the District Collector stated therein that it appeared to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the land speciﬁed in the schedule of the notiﬁcation is required for a public purpose and this showed total non-application of mind of the District Collector, (ii) The District Collector, who issued the impugned notiﬁcation, had no power to appoint the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), A.P.I.I.C., to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act, and (iii) No order has been passed disposing of the objections before issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act and notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. As regards the ﬁrst contention, Section 4(1) of the Act, as amended by the A.P. Amendment Act XXII of 1976, empowers the State Government and also the District Collector in respect of acquisition for certain purposes to issue notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. The sine qua non, for exercising the power under Section 4(1) of the Act, is the satisfaction that the land proposed to be acquired is needed for a public purpose. Such a satisfaction should be arrived at by the authority, which seeks to exercise such a power. In the instant case, the District Collector issued the notiﬁcation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon him to be satisﬁed that the proposed land is likely to be needed for a public purpose, before issuing the impugned notification. The impugned notiﬁcation reads “whereas it appears to the Government of Andhra Pradesh that the land speciﬁed in the schedule below and situated in Peddapuram Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, is needed for a public purpose………”. The expressions “Government of Andhra Pradesh” and “the District Collector” have diﬀerent connotations in the context of the notiﬁcation to be issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, because, the powers to be exercised by the two authorities under Section 4(1) of the Act are concurrent and the two phrases, namely, “Government of Andhra Pradesh” and “District Collector” have diﬀerent and distinct meanings. Ordinarily, the District Collector acts on behalf of the State Government. But in the context in which these two expressions are used in Section 4(1) of the Act, they should be understood as two diﬀerent statutory entities. In this view of the matter, while issuing the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, the District Collector is required to state that he is satisﬁed that the land is likely to be needed for a public purpose and he cannot issue a notiﬁcation on the basis of the satisfaction arrived at by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The learned Government Pleader fairly stated that the record does not disclose any correspondence between the Government and the District Collector. Therefore, the basic requirement of the satisfaction of the District Collector that the land is likely to be needed for a public purpose is not satisﬁed in the instant case. The impugned notiﬁcation, therefore, suﬀers from non-application of mind on the part of the District Collector. As regards the second contention, namely, that the District Collector has no power to appoint the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), A.P.I.I.C., Section 3(c) of the Act deﬁnes “Collector” as 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 the Act. Under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, every objection ﬁled under sub- section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf. The expression “Collector” found in this provision shall be read in the light of the deﬁnition of “Collector” under Section 3(c) of the Act. So read, the said expression has to be understood as the District Collector or a Deputy Commissioner and any other oﬃcer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector. In the impugned notiﬁcation, it is stated that the District Collector appointed Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), A.P.I.I.C. to perform the functions of the Collector. Such a power is not conferred on the District Collector. Under Section 3(c) of the Act, it is only the appropriate Government, which is empowered to delegate the powers of the Collector to a functionary other than the District Collector. Thus, even if a Special Deputy Collector is intended to be the Collector, it is only the State Government which can delegate such power to him and not the District Collector. The learned Government Pleader placed before me G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 09-01-1995, which reads as under: “Under clause (c) of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby appoints the Collectors, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram and East Godavari Districts, to perform the functions of a Collector, under the said Act for the purposes of acquisition of lands required for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited in the districts of Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam and East Godavari respectively.” In my opinion, this G.O. does not authorize the District Collector to appoint another oﬃcer to discharge the functions of a District Collector under Section 5-A(2) of the Act, because, it is only the District Collectors of the three districts mentioned therein who are entrusted with the power to act as Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act. The impugned notiﬁcation is, therefore, liable to be quashed on this ground as well. With regard to the third contention, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition fairly conceded that no speciﬁc order has been passed on the objections ﬁled by the petitioners. Under Section 5-A(2) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the District Collector to pass an order on the objections ﬁled by the land owners. Failure to pass such an order is, therefore, in serious violation of the statutory provision. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and all other consequential notices to the extent of the above mentioned land of the petitioners are quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. This order however does not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with law. As a sequel to the above, WPMP.Nos.3829 of 2001, 29120 of 2007 and WVMP.No.1431 of 2002 are disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:30-10-2008 usd