THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No. 26327 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner whose land admeasuring an extent of Acs.2.97 cents situated in Survey Nos. 48/1, 48/2, 49/1 and 49/2 of Kadavakollu village, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District has been acquired has filed this writ petition challenging the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) dated 13.05.2006 published in the Gazette on 15.05.2006 and to declare the action of the second respondent viz., the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid division in conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act as illegal. The brief facts are that a draft notification was published in the District Extraordinary Gazette No.20/2006 on 15.05.2006 as required under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the aforesaid land of the petitioner by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act were invoked. On a writ petition in W.P.No.12018 of 2006 filed by the petitioner questioning the invocation of urgency clause without entertaining the objections under Section 5-A of the Act, this court by orders dated 23.06.2006 directed the respondents to conduct enquiry as per the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. Pursuant thereto the second respondent conducted enquiry after notice to the petitioner. During the enquiry, it appears, that the petitioner pleaded that the land is not suitable for house sites and an extent of Acs. 3.00 cents of land which is more suitable for house sites is existing nearby the said village. She also pleaded that the notification was not according to law for non- compliance of the publication in the news papers. Be that as it may, the second respondent held the enquiry and by over ruling the objections passed orders dated 26.09.2006. Heard Sri C. Raghu learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Order of the second respondent dated 26.09.2006 is under challenge in this writ petition inter alia on the ground that the second respondent is not competent to pass orders under Section 5-A of the Act. The challenge is on the substantive ground that Section 5-A of the Act although empowers the second respondent to hold enquiry, the same does not authorise him to pass an order, the said power being vested in the District Collector. It is true that the proceedings dated 26.09.2006 evidently show that the second respondent not only considered the objections but also decided the objections. Both the learned counsel would submit that under similar fact and legal situation this court in W.P. Nos. 20360 of 2006 and batch disposed of the writ petitions holding that the Land Acquisition Officers can hold enquiry but not authorised in law to decide the objections. For the aforesaid reasons, while following the said orders of this court to the extent relevant in this case, the following order is passed: 1) The orders of the second respondent passed in pursuance of enquiry under Section 5-A are declared as invalid. 2) The second respondent, however, is permitted to submit the record of enquiry to the District Collector. 3) It is competent for the District Collector to pass appropriate orders as per law on such report submitted by the second respondent; and 4) The orders passed thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. NOUSHAD ALI,J Dt. 29.01.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.26327 OF 2006 Dt. 29.01.2011