IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23538 of 2006 Between: Mohammad Roshanuddin ..... Petitioner AND The Collector & District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Rama Gopal Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23538 of 2006 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification No.G3/5174/2006, dated 20.10.2006 issued by respondent No.1, whereby he proposed to acquire an extent of Ac.2.47 cents belonging to the petitioner for providing house sites to the weaker sections under the Indiramma housing scheme. The petitioner having filed objections in response to the notice of enquiry proposed to be held under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) filed the present Writ Petition on the sole ground that under the provisions of Section 5A, it is only the Collector, who is empowered to hear and dispose of the objections and that, therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power or authority to hold enquiry. This aspect is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in R. Veera Raghava Prasad and others vs. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another[1], wherein this Court held as under: “It is evident from the above extracted notification that the Revenue Divisional Officers in the State are appointed as Collectors for discharging the function of holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. It is no doubt true that the impugned notifications mention that the District Collector, Krishna District, authorized the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada, to hold enquiry under Section 5A and that the District Collector does not contain such a power. In my considered view, this misstatement of fact by itself would not vitiate the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada, by virtue of the above mentioned notification issued by the State Government falls within the definition of ‘Collector’ in Section 3(c) of the Act and consequently she is vested with the power to hold the enquiry under Section 5A. In my considered view, it is the existence of power, which is relevant irrespective of the claim of the District Collector that he appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada, to discharge the functions of Collector. In view of G.O.Ms.No.822, dated 16.07.1985, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.” Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to advance arguments on the merits of the case, I am afraid, it is not appropriate for this Court to deal with the same at this stage, as the enquiry into the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act is still pending. Therefore, for the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As the petitioner indulged in vexatious litigation and stalled the acquisition proceedings for 4½ years, he shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim stay granted on 13.11.2006 is vacated and WPMP.No.30001 of 2006 is dismissed. WVMP.No.1823 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.06.2011 ES Note:- Registry to furnish a copy of this order to the High Court Legal Services Authority. [1] 2008 (2) ALT 136