THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14125 of 2010 Date: 01.07.2010 Between: Dr. Y.Surendranath, Guntur. .... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Guntur and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14125 of 2010 O R D E R : Petitioner herein claims to be the owner of Ac.3.74 cents of land situated in Sy.No.281/1 of Perakalapudi Village, Dugirala Mandal, Guntur District. The said land is sought to be acquired for a public purpose namely establishing a burial ground for the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Communities of Perakalapudi Village. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 11.02.2009. Section 5- A enquiry was proposed to be conducted and objections were invited from the persons interested. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed his objections by letter dated 04.01.2010 stating that he was solely depending on the agricultural income from the land in question and if it was acquired, he would be loosing his only source of income. After completion of necessary enquiry, the respondent vide proceedings dated 18.05.2010 rejected the objections. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed contending that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Act apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of personal hearing was given to him as required under Section 5-A of the Act. It is also contended that as the delegation of power to the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent was without any authority of law, the entire proceedings were vitiated and the acquisition was invalid. Though no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has placed before this Court the entire record which shows that having enquired into the objections raised by the petitioner, it was concluded by the 1st respondent that the petitioner-a medical practitioner, was having a clinic in the village and he got sufficient earnings and that he was not depending on agriculture income. It was also found in the enquiry that the petitioner was possessing Ac.3.74 guntas of dry land in Sy.No.281- 1 of Perakalapudi Village apart from Ac.2.76 cents in Sy.No. 14 of Pulichintalapalem village of Vemuru Mandal and that he was not a small farmer as sought to be contended by him. The record also shows that personal hearing was given to the petitioner and the petitioner had appeared before the Tahsildar Duggirala Mandal and his statement was recorded on 07.05.2010. Hence, the petitioner’s allegation that no opportunity of hearing was given to him is unfounded. As petitioner’s objections were considered and rejected after a detailed enquiry and on application of mind to all the relevant factors, the order dated 18.05.2010 warrants no interference by this Court. So far as the contention that the delegation was without authority is concerned, the learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court G.O.Ms.No.822 Revenue (K) Department, dated 16.07.1985 under which in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3-A of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh appointed the Revenue Divisional Officers and the Mandal Revenue Officers to perform the functions of a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of acquisition of lands for the construction, extension or improvements of any dwelling house to the poor; for the provision of Pathways to Harijanawadas and provision of burial grounds including pathways to burial grounds to Scheduled Castes and other Weaker Sections of Society. In view of the said notification, the contention that the collector is not empowered to delegate the powers to the 2nd respondent is untenable. In the circumstances, the impugned action cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. Thus, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 01.07.2010 KLP