IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1658 of 2008 Between: Smt.R.Rajeswari Devi ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector & District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1658 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the order dated 07.01.2007 (07.01.2008) passed by respondent No.1, whereby he rejected the objections of the petitioner for the proposed acquisition of an extent of Ac.0.40 cents of land comprised in RS No.247/2 of Hanumantaipet, H/o.Kokanarayanapalem village of Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of hearing, is that by the power delegated, respondent No.2 is competent to hold enquiry and send his report and respondent No.1 shall consider the said report and pass appropriate orders on the objections filed by the landowners under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). He submitted that a reading of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 shows that while sending his report, respondent No.2 stated, “hence the petition of the landowner need not be considered.” According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 excluded his authority by coming to a conclusion himself instead of confining himself to submit a report on the objections filed by the petitioner. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. It is no doubt true that the limited power delegated on respondent No.2 is to submit his report on the objections filed by the landowners. While making his report, respondent No.2 is not precluded from expressing his opinion, which is not binding, on respondent No.1. Ultimately, it is respondent No.1 who is vested with the power of decision making on the report submitted by respondent No.2. Viewed from this perceptive, I do not see any illegality in respondent No.2 expressing his opinion while submitting his report. Ultimately, it is for respondent No.1 to take an independent decision on the report submitted by respondent No.2. Therefore, I do not feel persuaded to accept this contention of the learned counsel and entertain the writ petition only on ground that the order of respondent No.1 is vitiated on account of respondent No.2 expressing his opinion. No other contention is advanced. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 31.01.2008 Dsr