-THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1443 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.1.18 cents of land in survey Nos.175/11 and 12 of Tholapi Village of Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District. The District Collector, Srikakulam, the 1st respondent, published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 13.07.2006, proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner and another extent of Acs.2.00, owned by others. Urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, was dispensed with. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17624 of 2006, challenging the invocation of urgency clause. The writ petition was disposed of on 25.08.2006, at the admission stage, directing that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, be held. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam, the 2nd respondent herein, who was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer; issued a notice dated 25.10.2006, to the petitioner proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 13.11.2006. Through his order, dated 30.12.2006, the 2nd respondent rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit justifying the rejection of the objections raised by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The 1st respondent dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act, while proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner. However, this Court directed that such enquiry be held. The 2nd respondent was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer. He has taken upon himself the conducting of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is debatable, whether he answers the description of Collector, as mentioned in Section 5-A(2) of the Act. Even assuming that he is competent to hold the enquiry, the maximum he could have done was to submit a report to the 1st respondent, who issued the notification. It was for the 1st respondent to consider the report and form an opinion as to whether the land be acquired or not. In stead, the 2nd respondent himself passed the impugned order rejecting the contentions of the petitioner. The same is untenable in law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15.04.2010. GJ