IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.253 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28.12.2007 in W.P.No.18881 of 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: R. Veera Raghava Prasad, S/o. Sri R.Venkateswara Rao R/o. Pamulapadu village, Pedaparapudi Mandal, Krishna District. .....Appellant And 1. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri C. Raghu Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court passed the following: JUDGMENT: (per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.18881 of 2006, dated 28th December, 2007, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. The petitioner was aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the State authorities with regard to acquisition of his land and, therefore, challenging the same, the aforesaid petition was filed. The case of the appellant – petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the acquisition proceedings were bad in law for the reason that agricultural land belonging to him had been acquired and the said land was to be put to non-agricultural use. According to him, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 do not permit agricultural land to be put to non-agricultural use. In the circumstances, according to the appellant – petitioner, the acquisition proceedings were bad in law. Another submission, which was made before the Court by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, is that the enquiry required to be made under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should have been made by the Collector, but in the instant case, the enquiry had been made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has no authority to conduct enquiry and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings were bad in law. The same arguments have been advanced before this Court. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and have also gone through the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge. We are in agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge. The land in question has been only acquired at this stage. The land is agricultural land, and simply by acquisition, it does not become non-agricultural. If the land in question is to be put to non-agricultural use, before putting the land to actual use, the land in question can very well be converted into non-agricultural land. Moreover, the provisions of the aforesaid Act are not applicable to the Government and, therefore, it is open to the Government to put the land to even non- agricultural use. In any case, the said question is irrelevant at the stage when the lands are acquired. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the provisions pertaining to the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 are not violated by virtue of the acquisition. So far as the second contention is concerned, the Revenue Divisional Officer had already been empowered as Collector by virtue of a notification issued by the Government. If the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had been appointed as a Special Officer and was authorised as Collector as per the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in our opinion, he was entitled to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A because he was appointed as a Collector as stated hereinabove. For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the petition. The appeal also has no merit and, therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 29th April, 2008 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. ….REGISTRAR To 1. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. 3. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4. Two C.D. copies. ARS