THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22007 of 2006 DATED: 15.03.2010 Between: Vempati Ramakrishna Murthy and another .. Petitioners And District Collector, East Godavari Disrict, Kakinada and others .. Respondents ORDER: Questioning the notification dated 22.09.2006 in Ref.No.G3/2048/06 issued by the 1st respondent- District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.49/2 of Torredu Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma Housing Programme, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The petitioners question the impugned notification mainly on two grounds namely 1) the lands proposed to be acquired are agricultural lands and acquisition thereof for non-agricultural purpose, without converting them for such use, is contrary to law and 2) the 1st respondent- District Collector has no authority to appoint the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act, and it is only the Government, who can, under Section 3(c) of the Act, appoint any officer to perform the functions of the Collector, under the Act, and thus the 2nd respondent cannot conduct 5-A enquiry under the Act. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, and, reiterating the contents therein, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that there is no necessity to convert the subject land for being used for non-agricultural purpose, before acquisition, and this Court, in various decisions, has categorically held that acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non-agricultural purpose, and thus the contention of the petitioners to the contrary cannot be accepted. She further submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.822 Revenue (K) Department dated 16.07.1985, appointing the Revenue Divisional Officers and Mandal Revenue Officers in their respective jurisdictions to perform the functions of the Collector, under the Act, for the purpose of acquisition of lands. By virtue of that power conferred on him, the 2nd respondent can conduct 5-A enquiry and, in the case on hand, pursuant to the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners attended the enquiry and filed their objections to the proposed acquisition, and the 2nd respondent, having considered those objections, submitted his report to the 1st respondent for passing appropriate orders. At that stage, the petitioners filed this writ petition and obtained interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notification and, thereby, all further proceedings have been stalled. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. Though it is the case of the petitioners that the subject land, being agricultural land, cannot be acquired for non-agricultural purpose, without converting it for such use, the fact remains that this Court in R.V.R. Prasad v. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam[1], has categorically held that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities cannot be invalidated on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural land for being used for non- agricultural purpose and thus the contention of the petitioners to the contrary fails. So far as the other ground raised by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent, without being appointed by the Government, cannot conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, is concerned, it is to be noted that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.822 Revenue (K) Department dated 16.07.1985, appointing the Revenue Divisional Officers and Mandal Revenue Officers in their respective jurisdictions to perform the functions of the Collector, under the Act, for the purpose of acquisition of lands, and therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent cannot conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and no fault can be found with the action of the 2nd respondent in exercising his limited power and submitting his report to the 1st respondent-District Collector on the objections raised by the petitioners. For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notification need not be interfered with and, as the proceedings in the case on hand have been stalled at the stage of passing of orders by the 1st respondent, under Section 5-A of the Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent shall consider the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 15th March, 2010 IBL [1] 2008 (3) ALD 198