*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +W.P.No.25460 of 2006 % 4-7-2011 # V.Bhavani Devi w/o.late Babu Rao, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .. Petitioner Vs. $ The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam and others .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner : Sri Karra Srinivas ^ Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition ?CASES REFERRED : 1. W.P.No.3016/2001 dated 30-10-2008 2. 2008(2) ALT 136 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.25460 of 2006 Date : 4-7-2011 Between : V.Bhavani Devi w/o.late Babu Rao, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Karra Srinivas Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification dated 1-9-2006 issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). I have heard Sri Karra Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.1- 59 cents in Sy.Nos.248/5 and Ac.1-43 in Sy.No.248/7 of Indupalli village, Ungutur Mandal, Krishna District. By the impugned notification, they are proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections along with the lands of others. The objections raised by the petitioner, having been rejected in the purported enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act, the present Writ Petition is filed. At the hearing Sri Karra Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly advanced three submissions. They are: (i) While the impugned notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act by the District Collector, it is stated therein that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is satisfied that the land is needed for a specified public purpose. He therefore submitted that the District Collector being a different entity from the State Government, the notification suffers from violation of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this court in Pyda Lakshmi Vs. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited[1]; (ii) In the impugned notification, respondent No.1 stated that under Section 3(c) of the Act, he has authorized the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid to perform the functions of the Collector and that as the power to make such appointment is vested only in the State Government, the appointment of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzuvid to perform the functions of the Collector, by respondent No.1, is illegal. The learned counsel relied upon the same Judgment in Pyda Laksmi (supra) in support of this submission as well; and (iii) The enquiry was conducted and order rejecting the objections of the petitioner was passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively, who have no power or authority under the provisions of the Act and therefore the order rejecting the objections and the subsequent proceedings if any, shall be declared as nullity. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition opposed the above submissions and produced the relevant file at the hearing. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Pyda Lakshmi (supra) this court held that the State Government and the Collector being different entities under Section 4(1) of the Act, which have concurrent powers to issue notification for acquisition of private land for public purpose, the authority which issued the notification should have the satisfaction that the land is needed for a public purpose. The learned Government Pleader has drawn a distinction between the case decided by this court in Pyda Lakshmi (supra) and the present case. He has placed reliance on the additional counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 wherein it is inter alia stated that the then District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam after satisfying himself about the requirement for acquisition of Ac.4-15 cents in R.S.No.248/5, 248/6 and 248/7 for public purpose, namely, for providing house sites under Indiramma scheme to the eligible beneficiaries belonging to weaker sections of Indupalli village, approved the draft notification. It is also stated that the District Collector, Krishna has approved the draft notification on his satisfaction about the requirement of land for public purpose. It is also averred that while sending the draft notification for publication in the Gazette and newspapers, the format of Form II-A as provided in the Act was adopted without making necessary corrections in the printed format and that the office staff of the Collector, Krishna have not corrected the format by inadvertent mistake. The learned Government Pleader placed the original file before the court, from a perusal of which I am satisfied that the issue of the proposed acquisition engaged the attention of respondent No.1, who approved the proposal in the note file on 19-8-2006. From the above facts, I am of the opinion that the case on hand is distinguishable from Pyda Lakshmi (supra), on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance. In that case, this court observed that the learned Government Pleader has fairly stated that the record does not disclose any correspondence between the Government and the District Collector and that therefore the basic requirement relating to satisfaction of the District Collector was absent. However, as noted above, in this case, not only that the District Collector has filed an additional counter-affidavit but also the file produced on his behalf would show that he was satisfied that the land was needed for providing house sites to the weaker sections, which undoubtedly is a public purpose. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. The second submission of the learned counsel is that respondent No.1 had no power or authority to delegate his powers to the Revenue Divisional Officer to act as Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act. In Pyda Lakshmi (supra), the land was needed for A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). In that case also the District Collector has delegated the power to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, APIIC, to perform the functions of the Collector. This court observed that by G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 9-1-1995, the State Government has appointed the Collectors of Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram and East Godavari Districts to perform the functions of a ‘Collector’ under the Act for the purposes of acquisition of lands required for APIIC in those three Districts. Having regard to the said special situation prevailing in the Districts in which the lands were situated, this court held that in the face of the specific delegation in favour of the three District Collectors, the appointment of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, APIIC, to perform the functions of the Collector, was illegal. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in R.Veera Raghava Prasad Vs. District Collector, Krishna District[2] wherein this court dealt with a similar case where the land was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. This court has taken note of G.O.Ms.No.822, Revenue (K) Department, dated 16-7-1985 whereby the State Government has appointed Revenue Divisional Officers in the State as Collectors for discharging the function of holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Thus, on facts, this case is distinguishable from the one in Pyda Lakshmi (1-supra). In the present case, in the face of the delegation made by the Government itself, even if the Collector has claimed in the impugned notification that he has appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzuvid, to perform the functions of the Collector, the same does not vitiate the notification as at any rate the Revenue Divisional Officer was already appointed as the Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act by the aforementioned G.O. With regard to the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 and 2 have no power or authority to hold enquiry and reject the objections, the learned Government Pleader fairly conceded the same. This court has held in a number of cases that under Section 5-A of the Act, the power to reject objections is vested only in the State Government or the District Collector, as the case may be and such power cannot be delegated in favour of respondent No.2. Similarly, it is only the Collector who is, within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act, that can hold the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and respondent No.3 not being the Collector, has no authority to hold the enquiry. In this case, admittedly, respondent No.3 held the purported enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and respondent No.2 has passed the order rejecting the objections of the petitioner. This action on the part of both these respondents not being sanctioned by law, the very enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is vitiated and consequently the declaration published under Section 6 is invalid and unenforceable. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by setting aside the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act, with liberty to the respondent No.1 to hold proper enquiry and pass an order afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 4-7-2011 AM L.R. copies [1] W.P.No.3016/2001 dated 30-10-2008 [2] 2008(2) ALT 136