HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.21009 of 2006 Date : 15-6-2011 Between : Padala Venkat Reddy and another .. Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari District, West Godavari and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri T.Lakshmikanth for Sri P.R. Prasad Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification dated 30-6-2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), proposing to acquire Ac.1-49 cents in Sy.Nos.294/1, 294/2, 294/3 and 294/9 of Kadimpadu village, Peravalli Mandal, West Godavari District for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma scheme. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though the petitioners have questioned the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, they are limiting their prayer to setting aside the order rejecting their objections by respondent No.2, with the further prayer of directing respondent No.1 to pass appropriate fresh order on the objections filed by them on the proposed acquisition. A perusal of the record shows that the objections filed by the petitioners to the proposed acquisition were rejected by respondent No.2. Under Section 5-A of the Act, the appropriate Government is empowered to take decisions on the objections filed by the persons interested in the acquisition proceedings. Section 3-A of the Act empowers the State Government to direct that any power conferred or any duty imposed on it by the Act be exercised or discharged by the District Collector by notification published in the A.P. Gazette. The learned Government Pleader conceded that in view of this delegation of power in favour of the District Collector, it is only he who is empowered to dispose of the objections. In the instant case, respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioners’ objections, which is contrary to the statutory scheme envisaged by the Act. For the above mentioned reasons, impugned endorsement dated 18-8-2006 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioners, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioners before proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, interim order dated 11-10-2006 is vacated. WPMP No.26657/2006 is dismissed and WVMP No.759/2009 is disposed of. _________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 15-6-2011 AM