IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SUNDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25245 of 2005 Between: 1 Nanaji Patel, s/o Jadavaji Bhai Patel, r/o 8-4-301, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 Anand Raj Singh, s/o late A.N.Singh, r/o 8-4-316, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 3 Akihla Mineral Works, represented by P.R.Singh, s/o late A.N.Singh, r/o 8-4-325, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 4 Shiv Mukhi Devi, d/o Ram Lagan Bhaiya, r/o 8-4-343, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 5 Mohd.Shareef, s/o Sk.Mohammed, r/o 8-4-343/1, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 6 Sathaiah, s/o late Sri Sathaiah, r/o 8-4-343/1, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 7 Guruvaiah, s/o Narayana, r/o 8-4-343/2/A, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 8 B.Narayana, s/o late Papaiah, r/o 8-4-343/2/A, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 9 L.B.Singh, s/o Jay Singh, r/o 8-4-343/A/3, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 10 Anil Agarwal, s/o Satyanarayana Agarwal, r/o 8-4-343/B/2, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad represented by its Secretary. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 4 The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad represented by Commissioner. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the notification under section 4(1) and declaration under section 6 of the L.A. Act published in Deccan Chronicle daily dated 6-11-2004 and 7-11-2005 as illegal arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside the Notification dated 6.11.2004 issued under Section 4(1) and the Declaration dated 7.11.2005 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners, who are the owners of small extents of lands in S.Nos.76 and 77 of Fatehnagar village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the purpose of widening the road from a Meter Factory to Don Bosco School. The petitioners averred that in pursuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, they filed detailed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and that the 3rd respondent, who considered the objections, appeared to have sent proposals to the 2nd respondent, on the basis of which, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 7.11.2005. These proceedings are assailed mainly on two grounds namely (1) The State Government has not delegated its powers under Section 4(1), 5(2) and 6 of the Act to the 2nd respondent to act as Land Acquisition Officer and hence, the Notification issued under Section 4(1) is liable to be set aside and (2) Even assuming that the 2nd respondent-District Collector has power and jurisdiction to act on behalf of the State Government to acquire the lands, he has not disposed of the objections filed by the petitioners and that the 3rd respondent, who evidently disposed of the objections, had no jurisdiction to do so. He therefore submitted that the Declaration issued under Section 6 is liable to be set aside and once the Declaration is set aside the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act will be liable to be quashed because there would be no possibility of publishing fresh Declaration under Section 6 within the time limit of one year as envisaged in the said provision. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.1131, dated 17.7.1986, the power of the State Government under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 17(4) of the Act was vested in the District Collectors of Hyderabad and Warangal for the purpose of acquiring the properties, and hence, the Notification issued under Section 4(1) is within the powers of the 2nd respondent. She also stated that since going by the definition of the “Collector” in Section 3(c), the 3rd respondent falls within the said definition, he has jurisdiction to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioners. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find it necessary to give any specific finding thereon in the view I am taking on the second contention. With regard to the second contention, under Section 5-A(2), every objection 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 authorized by him in this behalf and after holding an enquiry, he shall send report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections together with the record of proceedings held by him for the decision of that Government and the decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. Under Section 3(A) of the Act, the State Government is empowered to delegate any power conferred or any duty imposed on it by the Act to the District Collectors. The scheme of the Act thus makes it clear either the appropriate Government or in a case where delegation of its power is made in favour of the District Collector, the District Collector alone is competent to decide on the objections submitted by the landowners. Though Section 3(c) defined “Collector” as 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, the said provision does not in any way empower the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer to exercise the function of the State Government and delegated to the District Collectors. As a result of the definition of the “Collector, the 3rd respondent for the purposes of the Act can be treated as Collector, but not as the District Collector. Since the power of delegation conferred on the Government is only with reference to the District Collector and not to the Collector as defined under Section 3(c) of the Act, I find myself unable to agree with the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the rejection of objections by the 3rd respondent is within the delegated powers of the 3rd respondent. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, invited my attention to the impugned Notification under Section 4(1) and contended that since the power is delegated by the Government to the 3rd respondent to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act, he is entitled to dispose of the objections. This contention overlooks the true scope and purpose of Section 3-A as noted above, which authorized the State Government to delegate its powers to the District Collectors only. It is, therefore, beyond the powers of the State Government to delegate any of its powers to respondent No.3 who is not a District Collector. Indeed, a perusal of the said Notification shows that the Government has not delegated its power to respondent No.3. What it has actually delegated is the power of Collector exercisable under Section 5- A to respondent No.3. Under Section 5-A(2) of the Act as noted earlier, the Collector will hold enquiry and submit report to the Government and it is for the Government to decide the objections either by itself or by delegating its power to the District Collector by invoking Section 3-A. By mentioning that the 3rd respondent is delegated with the powers of the Collector under Section 5-A, the powers having been specified in Section 5-A(2) only to the extent of calling for objections, hearing them and sending report, the 3rd respondent is not conferred with the jurisdiction of disposing of the objections as well. In this view of the matter, the rejection of objections of the 3rd respondent is without jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned Declaration dated 7.11.2005 issued under Section 6 of the Act as a consequence of such rejection is liable to be quashed. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the quashing of Declaration under Section 6 would inevitably lead to invalidation of Notification under Section 4(1) because any Declaration under Section 6 shall be made within one year from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Since the period of one year from the date of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act having expired long time back, there is no possibility of making of a fresh Declaration within one year of the publication of existing Notification issued under Section 4(1). Hence, the Notification under Section 4(1) is also liable to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Notification issued under Section 4(1) and the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act are quashed. Liberty is given to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under the Act. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 9th July, 2008 bcj