IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2900 of 2007 Between: Kalakota Ganga Bhavani and another. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Krishna Kishore for Sri N.Siva Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2900 of 2007 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 6-1-2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and order dated 3-2-2007 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, respondent No.2 herein, whereby he rejected the objections filed by the petitioners as illegal and without jurisdiction. Heard Sri K.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel appearing for Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land proposed to be acquired is an agricultural land and that without getting the nature of the said land converted under the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, the acquisition is illegal. He further submitted that under Section 5-A of the Act, as amended by the State of A.P., it is only the District Collector, who is competent to dispose of the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act and that, in the instant case, respondent No.2 rejected the objections, which, according to him, is without jurisdiction. The first contention is liable to be rejected for the reason that this Court by judgment dated 28-12-2007 passed in Writ Petition 18881 of 2006 and batch (R.Veera Raghava Prasad Vs. The District Collector Krishna at Machilipatnam) rejected challenge to acquisition of lands without conversion. Following the detailed reasoning contained therein, this contention is rejected. With respect to the second contention, I find that the same is well founded. Under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, the appropriate Government shall take a decision on the objections submitted by the owners of the land and the report submitted by the Collector. Under Section 3-A of the Act, the State Government is empowered to delegate any of the functions of the Government to the District Collector. By G.O.Ms.No.1888 (Revenue-K), dated 31-12-1984, the State Government delegated its powers under Sections 4,5-A, 6 and sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act to the District Collectors. Thus, it is clear that it is only the District Collectors, who are competent to dispose of the objections and respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction in this regard. For the aforementioned reasons, order dated 3-2-2007 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the objections raised by the petitioners. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. -------------------------------- ---- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 28-01-2008 MNR