IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26646 of 2006 Between: 1.Abdul Subhani and 3 others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Lakshmikanth for Sri P.R.Prasad Counsel for Respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.1615/06/G2, dated 02- 06-2006, issued by respondent No.1- District Collector, Guntur District, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners’ land admeasuring Ac.2-14 cents, situated in Survey Nos.430-1, 432 and 434 of Pidaparru Village, Kollipara Mandal of Guntur District, was notified for acquisition under the impugned notification. In pursuance of the notice of enquiry, the petitioners filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. By endorsement, dated 31-10-2006, respondent No.2 has purported to reject those objections. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents conceded that it is only the District Collector, who is empowered, under Section 5-A read with Section 3-A of the Act, to dispose of the objections and that respondent No.2 has neither power nor authority to reject the same. In view of this admitted position, the impugned endorsement, dated 31-10-2006, cannot be sustained in law. The learned Government Pleader, however, submitted that the respondents have issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 22- 11-2006 and that the petitioners failed to challenge the same. In my opinion, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act should precede the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and disposal of the objections, if any, raised by the land owners, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. When the procedure followed by the respondents suffers from patent illegality and is in violation of the specific provisions of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which is a consequential action becomes nonest. Therefore, even if the petitioners failed to specifically challenge the same, the respondents cannot be permitted to go ahead with the acquisition proceedings without retracing their steps and following the proper procedure laid down under the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and endorsement, dated 31-10-2006, of respondent No.2, and declaration, published under Section 6 of the Act, are declared as invalid and unenforceable. The respondents are permitted to hold a fresh enquiry and respondent No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order, after such enquiry, on the objections filed by the petitioners. As a sequel, WVMP.No.724 of 2007 and WPMP.No.34236 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 22nd June, 2011 lur