THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.25885 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as the consequential declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act proposing to acquire their land admeasuring Acs.2.40 cents situated in Survey Nos.24/2, 25/1 & 25/2 of Kandregula Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioners state that on an earlier occasion when the respondents issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act simultaneously dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by invoking urgency clause, they filed W.P.No.16612 of 2006. That this Court by order, dated 09.08.2006, allowed the said writ petition and directed the competent authority to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, after affording opportunity to the owners of the land. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioners that subsequent to the disposal of W.P.No.16612 of 2006, the respondents have issued a notice, dated 31.10.2006, under Section 5-A of the Act calling for their objections and pursuant to the same, they claim to have submitted objections, but, however, they state that the same were rejected by the Joint Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari, through his proceedings, dated 31.10.2006. Hence, the present writ petition. This Court, while issuing Rule nisi, on 13.12.2006 granted interim stay in the matter. Seeking to vacate the said interim order, the respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.615 of 2007 along with counter. In the counter, the respondents have denied the allegations made by the petitioners. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to pass an order rejecting the objections raised during 5- A enquiry, but not the Joint Collector, as was done in the present cases. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents has not disputed the legal position. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to reject the objections raised under Section 5-A of the Act, but not the Joint Collector. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada, passed orders, dated 31.10.2006, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, which cannot be sustained. Therefore, on that ground alone, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.20360 and batch, a learned single Judge of this Court had quashed the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further in the matter, if they so choose, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:18.03.2010 VGB