IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 339 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/01/2008 in WP NO : 1787 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Thandapu Ram Prasad S/oLate Venkata Krishna Reddy R/o. Voolapalli (V) Bikkavolu (M), East Godavari district. 2 Koosam Prasanthi D/o Thummuru Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy R/o Voolapalli (V), Bikkavolu (M), East Godavari district. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District at kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram Town, East Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rangampet(M) East Godavari district. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri R.Subhash Reddy, J) This writ appeal is ﬁled by the petitioners in W.P.No. 1787 of 2007, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 28-1-2008. The appellants herein claim to be the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.8-50 cents in Sy.No. 27 of Singampalli Village, Rangampet Mandal, East Godavari District. In the writ petition they have challenged the land acquisition proceedings by questioning the validity of the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 20-11-2006 and consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 23-1-2007. On an earlier occasion, they approached this Court when the enquiry was dispensed with. After conducting enquiry pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, the respondents have again rejected the objections raised by the appellants and issued declaration on 23-1-2007. The validity of the said notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration are questioned mainly on the ground that the notification was issued without obtaining any order for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006 and it was the further contention of the petitioners that though they have ﬁled valid objections, the said objections were not properly considered. The said writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge and aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed this appeal. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that they were granted time for ﬁling objections in the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act up to 30-12-2007. But however, the 2 nd respondent- Land Acquisition Oﬃcer concluded the enquiry and prepared the ﬁnal report on 28-12-2007 itself. When the matter is taken up on the last occasion, it was adjourned for production of records by the learned Government Pleader. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has produced the record. From the record, we find that Section 5-A report is prepared by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer by rejecting the objections on 28-12-2007 itself. When the appellants were permitted to ﬁle their objections up to 30- 12-2007 there was no reason for preparing the ﬁnal report on 28-12-2007 itself. In that view of the matter, without considering the other objections, as much as, enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the provisions under Section 5-A of the Act, we set aside the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act, dated 23-1-2007 and direct the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry afresh and take appropriate decision by considering the objections raised by the appellants after hearing them. Subject to the outcome of the enquiry, it is open for the appellants to challenge the validity of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th September, 2008. GRR