HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4615 of 2007 21.01.2008 Between: Kasukurthi Satyanarayana and another … Petitioners AND The District Collector, West Godavari District and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4615 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings, dated 22.02.2007 whereby the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) were rejected by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. An extent of Ac.1.36 cents, Ac.0.62 cents and Ac.2.00 cents of land situated in Survey Nos.428/1B, 427/5 and 428/1B respectively at Siddantham Village, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District, has been notified among other lands vide notification, dated 30.06.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act for providing house sites to weaker sections. In response to the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act, the petitioners filed their objections. In the affidavit, it was categorically pleaded that on their behalf, petitioner No.1 attended the office of respondent No.2 for participating in the enquiry and that a person by name Sri Satyanarayana, Senior clerk in the office of respondent No.2 held the purported enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and on the basis of the report submitted by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners on 22.02.2007. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit. Except making a vague statement that on 20.09.2006, petitioner No.1 attended his office for enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and after considering the objections, District Collector, West Godavari rejected the same, he failed to deny the specific averments contained in the affidavit that one Satyanarayana, who appeared to be Senior Clerk in the office of respondent No.2 and not respondent No.2, who held the enquiry. Under Section 5A of the Act, it is the Collector who is competent to hold enquiry and in view of the delegation given to respondent No.2, he is competent to hold enquiry. Respondent No.2 cannot further delegate this function which is very salutary in nature to his subordinate and thereby abdicate his statutory function of holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Respondent No.2 has not produced any record to satisfy this Court that he alone conducted enquiry and not his subordinate and, therefore, I am of the view that the procedure followed by respondent No.2 in discharging his statutory function under Section 5A of the Act is not proper and legal. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. If declaration under Section 6 of the Act already made, the same shall not be given effect to and the respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act afresh. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st JANUARY, 2008. kvni