THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4009 of 2007 ORDER: Through a notification dated 25.09.2006 published by the District Collector, Guntur, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), the lands of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.2.56 cents in Survey No.411-1 of Halfpet hamlet of Kolakaluru, Tenali Mandal, were sought to be acquired for providing house sites to the poor. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held. This was followed by publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners challenge the proceedings on various grounds. It is stated that though enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held, the District Collector did not express any opinion on that and that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was mechanically published. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. Particulars of the proceedings that have taken place at various stages are mentioned. According to them, there is no defect in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act or the subsequent proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The District Collector directed that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, 2nd respondent herein, who in turn was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners submitted their representation/objection before the 2nd respondent. On a consideration of the same, the 2nd respondent offered his remarks on the objection submitted by the petitioners, through his proceedings dated 10.01.2007 addressed to the 1st respondent. This ought to have given raise to consideration of the matter by the 1st respondent and a decision whether or not to proceed with the acquisition. From the enquiry made by this Court with the learned Government Pleader, whether there existed any proceedings, in which the 1st respondent indicated his decision to proceed with the acquisition, the answer is in the negative. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act mandates that the authority, which issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act must take an independent decision whether or not to proceed with the acquisition, after enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is held. There is a glaring lapse in this regard in the present case. Just on receipt of remarks from the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent proceeded to publish declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The defect is serious and not curable. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 09.06.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4009 of 2007 Date: 09.06.2010 JSU