IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4347 of 2008 Between: M.Prabhakar Reddy and 2 others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and 4 others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: None appeared The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4347 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Notification dated 16.02.2008, issued by respondent No.1 under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby certain extents of lands of the petitioners, situated at Janardhanapuram village, Nandiwada Mandal, Krishna District are proposed to be acquired. Heard Smt.K.Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition. This is the third round of litigation concerning the proposed acquisition of the petitioners’ lands. At the first instance, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19295/2006 which was dismissed by this Court as premature, since no formal acquisition proceedings were initiated at that time. Later, the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.22503/2006 and 23783/2006, seeking quashing of Notification dated 30.11.2007, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act. This Court allowed the said writ petitions and quashed notification issued under Sec.4(1) on the ground that one of the papers in which notification under Sec.4(1) was published had no circulation in the locality, where the lands are situated. Subsequently, the present notification is issued by respondent No.1 on 16.02.2008, whereunder the petitioners’ lands to the extent of Ac.7.84 cents are proposed to be acquired. It is this notification, which is assailed in this writ petition. Smt.K.Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners have been repeatedly approaching this Court and thwarting the attempts of the respondents to acquire the land, the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada developed prejudice against the petitioners and has been acting with vengeance to somehow acquire the petitioners lands. She stated that since the Land Acquisition Officer is acting with malice, she made him a party in his personal capacity. She invited my attention to the various averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition relating to the allegations of malice made against respondent No.5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under the scheme of the Act, it is respondent No.1 who is empowered to take a final decision on the objections filed by the landowners. It is only for administrative convenience that the Land Acquisition Officers are empowered to hold enquiry under Sec.5-A and submit their reports to the District Collectors, who after consideration of the same, would pass final orders. In this view of the matter, whether respondent No.5 developed prejudice against the petitioners or not, is not very much relevant. But, since the petitioners expressed serious apprehension about the neutrality and objectivity of respondent No.5, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to himself/herself hold enquiry under Sec.5-A, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and pass a reasoned order. Respondent No.1 shall communicate the order, so passed, to the petitioners before seeking to proceed further. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 29.02.2008 Dsr