THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.24811 of 2006 ORDER: Questioning the Notification dated 10.10.2006 in Ref.No. (G3)2052/2006 issued by the third respondent- Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Collector, Rajahmundry Division, East Godavari District, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac..3.00 in Sy.No.8/4A of Dulla Village, Kadiam Mandal of East Godavari District, for providing house sites to weaker sections, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner questions the impugned notification mainly on two grounds namely 1) the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural land and acquisition thereof for non-agricultural purpose, without converting it for such use, is contrary to law and 2) the first respondent- District Collector has no authority to appoint the third respondent-Sub Collector to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act, and it is only the Government, who can, under Section 3 (c) of the Act, appoint any officer to perform the functions of the Collector, under the Act, and thus the third respondent cannot conduct 5-A enquiry under the Act. A detailed counter-affidavit is field by the respondents and, reiterating the contents therein, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that there is no necessity to convert the subject land for being used for non-agricultural purpose, before acquisition, and this Court, in various decisions, has categorically held that acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non-agricultural purpose, and thus the contention of the petitioner to the contrary cannot be accepted. She further submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.822 Revenue (K) Department dated 16.07.1985, appointing the Revenue Divisional Officers and Mandal Revenue Officers in their respective jurisdictions to perform the functions of the Collector, under the Act, for the purpose of acquisition of lands. By virtue of that power conferred on him, the third respondent can conduct 5-A enquiry and, in the case on hand, pursuant to the notice issued by the third respondent under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner filed his objections to the proposed acquisition and the third respondent, having considered those objections and found them untenable, submitted his report to the second respondent-Joint Collector for passing appropriate orders. However, the Joint Collector, Kakinada, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and the report submitted by the third respondent, rejected the objections, vide proceedings dated 20.11.2006, which were communicated to the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner filed this writ petition and obtained interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notification and, thereby, all further proceedings have been stalled. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the subject land, being agricultural land, cannot be acquired for non-agricultural purpose, without converting it for such use, the fact remains that this Court in R.V.R. Prasad v. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam[1], has categorically held that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non- agricultural purpose and thus the contention of the petitioner to the contrary fails. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent, without being appointed by the Government, cannot conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that no power vests in the Joint Collector to reject the objections of the petitioner to the proposed acquisition and it is only the District Collector, who alone is competent to pass orders under Section 5-A of the Act, is concerned, this Court has already considered this issue in the common order dated 29.09.2006 passed in W.P.No.20360 of 2006 and batch and held that the limited power given to the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5-A of the Act is to submit a report on the objections raised by the interested persons to the proposed acquisition to the District Collector, who alone is competent to take final decision under Section 5-A of the Act. Since in the present case, the Joint Collector has passed the order dated 20.11.2006, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act, the same cannot be sustained, in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court. Moreover, the respondents have also specifically pleaded in their counter- affidavit that, if this Court feels that the Joint Collector is not competent to issue an order on the objections of the petitioner, the first respondent- District Collector may be permitted to consider the report of the third respondent afresh and pass orders under Section 5-A of the Act. In view of the above settled position of law and the agreed stand taken by the respondents, the rejection order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Joint Collector under Section 5-A of the Act is set aside. The first respondent- District Collector shall take final decision under Section 5-A of the Act and pass appropriate orders, after considering the objections of the petitioner as well as the report submitted by the third respondent. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 25.03.2010 va [1][1] 2008 (3) ALD 198