THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.25900 of 2006 ORDER: At the stage of interlocutory, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal at the request of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. The petitioners, who are two in number, filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire the subject land and the consequential endorsement, dated 22.11.2006, issued by the second respondent, namely, the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, APIIC, Visakhapatnam, rejecting the objections raised by them during the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.1.69 cents, Ac.0.60 cents and Ac.0.22 cents situated in Survey No.44/1, 44/2 and 44/3 respectively of Krishnampalem Village, Ramballi Mandal, presently known as Vijayarampuram Agraharam Village, Ramballi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 23.03.2006. They state that the said land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishment of Special Economic Zone by the APIIC and notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 03.07.2006. They also state that Invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, the respondents dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and questioning the same, the petitioners claim to have filed W.P.No.19041 of 2006 and this Court by order, dated 15.09.2006, disposed of the said writ petition quashing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and directing the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners further state that thereafter they submitted their objections to the proposed acquisition during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the second respondent, through the impugned endorsement, dated 22.11.2006, rejected their objections, though it is the Collector who is competent to reject objections submitted by them. The respondents filed counters in the matter stating that the second respondent-Land Acquisition Officer was appointed by the District Collector, and as such, he can exercise the power of the Collector to receive and reject the objections. It is also stated that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 08.12.2006. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, it is the Collector, who is competent to reject the objections raised under Section 5-A of the Act, but not the Land Acquisition Officer. Further, though the respondents contend that the second respondent was appointed by the District Collector and as such, the second respondent can reject the objections received during the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the District Collector has no authority to delegate the powers to pass orders under Section 5-A of the Act. Contrary to the said legal position, the second respondent issued the impugned endorsement rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners, which cannot be sustained. Therefore, on that ground alone, the impugned endorsement as well as the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the endorsement, dated 22.11.2006, issued by the second respondent as well as the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 08.12.2006. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further in the matter, if they so choose, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:18.03.2010 VGB