THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6795 OF 2007 July 07, 2010 Between: C.Koteswara Rao, S/o.Ramaswamy … Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna District at Machlipatnam And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6795 of 2007 ORDER: This is second round of litigation by the petitioner to thwart the acquisition of land by respondents for a public purpose, namely, allotment of house sites to poor people. Petitioner assails the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner’s wife was the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.2.62 situated at Tummalapalem Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in Krishna District. She statedly gifted the property to petitioner. She passed away on 15.9.2006. First respondent initiated proceedings under the Act and issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which was published in Krishna District Gazette on 30.5.2006. The same was published in the local Newspapers. Initially declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 05.6.2006, which was published in the Gazette. Assailing the same, petitioner filed W.P. No.945 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 11.1.2007 directing the respondents to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In obedience thereto, second respondent issued a notice of enquiry on 08.2.2007. Petitioner filed objections and appeared in the enquiry. After the enquiry, second respondent submitted a report to District Collector, who after considering the same approved declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The same was published on 26.3.2007 in the local Newspapers. Again the petitioner approached this Court challenging the same. It is contended that the petitioner is a small farmer, that there was no effective consideration of the objections raised by him, that copy of the report of enquiry was not communicated to petitioner and that the respondents did not obtain permission for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land. The counter affidavit is filed by the Assistant Collector and Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Vijayawada, opposing the writ petition. It is however not necessary to sum up the contents thereof, as the issue of notification and enquiry by the LAO are admitted. The submission that the petitioner’s land cannot be acquired as he is small farmer is not accepted. The Act does not prohibit acquisition of land belonging to small farmer. The Government issued executive instructions from time to time to the effect that as far as possible the land belongs to a small farmer should not be acquired. The executive instructions do not whittle down the power of eminent domain exercised by the State and its officials under the provisions of the Act. A perusal of Section 5-A(2) of the Act would show that the authority competent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has to consider the objections and submit a report. At that stage, whether the land is required and whether the land belonging to a person has to be deleted from the proposal are matters in fluid state. It is for the ultimate authority whether to accept or reject the report of the officer conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Therefore, the non-furnishing of copy of the report is not germane for considering the validity of the proceedings. Indeed as rightly pointed out by the other side, Section 5-A(2) of the Act does not contemplate furnishing copy of report of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In this case, second respondent conducted enquiry into the objections raised by petitioner and again recommended for acquisition of the land. Therefore, the matters must rest there. It is well settled that decision has to be arrived at after conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and is subject to satisfaction based on certain objective considerations. Therefore the contention that there is no proper consideration of the objections is misconceived. The Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, in pith and substance deals with the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The issue whether the agricultural land can be put to non-agricultural use would arise only when the proceedings under the Act are completed. At the preliminary stage of issue of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the issue would not arise. Even otherwise this Court in R.Veera Raghava Prasad v District Collector, Krishna District[1], considered the provisions of LA Act in juxtaposition with Conversion Act and held that acquisition proceedings in exercise of power of eminent domain cannot be curtailed nor invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non-agricultural purposes. There is no substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is accordingly dismissed. No cost. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 07, 2010. YS [1] 2008(2) ALT 136