IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10171 of 2001 Between: M.Padmavathamma. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Chakravarthy for Sri O.Manohar Reddy. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notiﬁcation dated 22-7- 2000 and declaration dated 22-3-2001 issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). In order to widen the road of Tirupathi to Pudi by converting the existing road into four- way lane, respondent No.1 issued notiﬁcation dated 22-7-2000 under Section 4(1) of the Act. A part of the building of the petitioner was notiﬁed for acquisition for the said purpose. Objections were called for and enquiry was held under Section 5-A of the Act by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer. The objections were considered by respondent No.1 and rejected. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 22-3- 2001. These proceedings are questioned in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri Chakravarthy, counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to dispose of the objections ﬁled under Section 5-A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, it is only the appropriate Government, who has jurisdiction. I have carefully considered this submission. Under Section 5-A of the Act, the objections made to the Collector, in writing, to the proposed acquisition, shall be forwarded, after hearing, along with his report to the appropriate Government and the appropriate Government shall take a decision thereon. However, under Section 3-A of the Act, the State Government may, by notiﬁcation in the A.P. Gazette, direct that any power conferred or any duty imposed on them by this Act, shall in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be speciﬁed in the notiﬁcation, be exercised or discharged by the District Collector. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition brought to my notice G.O.Ms.No.713, Revenue (K) Department, dated 30-4-1981 issued by the State Government by which its powers under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 17(4) have been delegated to the respective District Collectors for the purpose, inter alia, of construction of roads. In view of this G.O., there is a valid delegation in favour of the District Collector for deciding the objections under Section 5-A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. No other contention is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:08-09-2008 MNR