THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4848, 4849 and 3677 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The Government intended to acquire fairly vast extent of land abutting Ongole Town for providing house sites to the poor under a Government sponsored programme. A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 06.11.2008 by the District Collector, Prakasam proposing to acquire the said land. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District was designated as the authority to conduct enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. Stating to be on the basis of the report submitted to him by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector rejected the objections raised by the petitioners, through proceedings, dated 10.02.2009, paving the way for publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. The petitioners contend that it was only the Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal that invited their objections and in response to the same, they appeared before the Officer, and submitted representations. It is urged that the Tahsildar submitted a report on 05.02.2009 to the Revenue Divisional Officer and simply by changing the address, the Revenue Divisional Officer forwarded the report with the same date to the District Collector. Their grievance is that there was hardly any application of mind to the facts of the case. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that a detailed enquiry was conducted under Section 5-A of the Act and that every objection put forwarded by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons was taken into account. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The only protection accorded to a citizen in the context of compulsory acquisition under the Act is an enquiry under Section 5-A thereof. Barring that, there is no forum or avenue, for the affected person for ventilating his grievance. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court held that an enquiry under that provision must be effective and objective. In the instant case, after the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published, steps were initiated for conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is important to note that the Tahsildar submitted a report, dated 05.02.2009, to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Reference is made to the proceedings, dated 10.12.2008, of his Office. The report deals with various contentions under different headings. It is rather curious to note that this report, in verbatim, was submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector just by changing ‘to’ and ‘from’ addresses. Reference No.2 is the proceedings, dated 10.12.2008, of his Office. It is just un-understandable as to how the same proceedings can be issued from different Offices. It, therefore, emerges that the actual enquiry as such was conducted by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer did nothing more than forwarding the report of the Tahsildar to the District Collector by changing the address. The District Collector did not undertake any independent exercise. He has simply referred to the objections that were raised before the Tahsildar and rejected the same by referring to the report. This exercise cannot be treated as the one contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. Further, more than three years have elapsed ever since the proceedings were initiated. The question as to whether the necessity still exists and if so, whether the same land needs to be proceeded with, must be considered at this stage. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, strictly in accordance with law, duly giving opportunity to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.03.2011. kdl