HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.654 of 2007 DATE: 15.04.2010 Between: Daduluri Rajagopala Raju and others … Petitioners and The District Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.654 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of different extents of land in Sy.Nos.58/1, 64 and 65 of Chintuva Villge, Ramballi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, 1st respondent herein, published a notification, dated 03.07.2006, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) proposing to acquire about Acs.900.00 of land for establishment of a Special Economic Zone. The urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The petitioners and some of the aggrieved parties, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16323 of 2006 challenging the said notification, and this Court disposed of the writ petition through an order, dated 04.08.2006, directing that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held. 2. The Special Grade Deputy Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer, 2nd respondent herein, issued notices to the petitioners proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners submitted objections on 27.11.2006 raising several grounds. Taking this into account, the 2nd respondent made an endorsement, dated 03.01.2007, rejecting the objections of the petitioners and certain others. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent is not conferred with the power to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and it is only the 1st respondent that ought to have dealt with the matter. 4. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. According to them, it is competent for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is also stated that the lands of the petitioners are situated in the middle of the large extent. It is not possible to exclude the same, irrespective of the grounds urged by the petitioners. 5. Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 6. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether it is competent for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and to pass orders upon the objections raised by the effective parties? 7. As a matter of fact, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with by the 1st respondent, when he issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 03.07.2006. It is only in pursuance of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.16323 of 2006 that enquiry be held. 8. In clear and categorical terms, sub-section 2 of Section 5-A of the Act directs that it is only the District Collector that shall invite objections, consider the objections raised by the effective parties and pass appropriate orders. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent, who is appointed as the Land Acquisition Officer, has taken upon himself the task of issuing notice of enquiry as well as to pass orders rejecting the objections raised by the effective parties. The Act has assigned separate functions to the Land Acquisition Officer, on one hand, and the authority, on the other, that can issue notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is only the authority, who issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, that shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The reason is that it is ultimately his satisfaction that would lead to further steps in the matter whether of issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act or dropping the proceedings. It is brought to the notice of this Court that under identical circumstances, W.P.No.25900 of 2006 was allowed by this Court on 18.3.2010, on similar grounds. 9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The endorsement dated, 03.01.2007, made by the 2nd respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15th April, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.654 of 2007 (Allowed) 15th April, 2010 CBS