THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.25870 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Acs.2.50 cents situated in Survey No.133/3B of Mirthipadu Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. It is their case that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued by the respondents proposing to acquire the said land. That thereafter pursuant to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, they claim to have submitted their objections. While so, it is their grievance that the third respondent, namely, the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, based on the remarks offered by the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, rejected the objections raised by them, through his proceedings, dated 22.11.2006, which are impugned herein, and subsequently, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was also issued. Hence, the present writ petition. This Court, while issuing Rule nisi, on 13.12.2006 granted interim stay in the matter. Seeking to vacate the said interim order, the respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.325 of 2007 along with counter. In the counter, the respondents have denied the allegations made by the petitioners. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to pass an order rejecting the objections raised during 5- A enquiry, but not the Joint Collector, as was done in the present cases. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents has not disputed the legal position. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to reject the objections raised under Section 5-A of the Act, but not the Joint Collector. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the impugned order was passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, which cannot be sustained. Therefore, on that ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.20360 and batch, a learned single Judge of this Court had quashed the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings, dated 22.11.2006, issued by the third respondent, namely, the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada, as also the consequential declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further in the matter, if they so choose, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:18.03.2010 VGB