THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.2704 of 2007 Date: 28.01.2008 Between: Gudiseva Uma Maheswara Rao … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Raghu Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.2704 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… … Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the notification Rc.G4-380/2007, dated 08.02.2007 published in Newspaper issued by the 1st respondent in Form 2A under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 notifying intention to acquire Ac.2.80 cents in Sy.No.59/3 dry agricultural land relating to the petitioner situated at Mekavanipalem Village, Bandar Mandal, Krishna District, for the purpose of providing residential sites to the poor people as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 and also contrary to Form 2A of Sec.4(1) notification by not stipulating the authority under Sec.5A and set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” At the hearing, Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions, namely, i) that without conversion of the agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, the proposed acquisition of the petitioner’s land is illegal, and (ii) that the impugned notification does not indicate the authority to whom the function of holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) is entrusted. As regards the first contention, this Court in judgment dated 28.12.2007 passed in Writ Petition 18881 of 2006 and batch rejected a similar contention. Therefore, the first contention fails and is accordingly rejected. With regard to the second contention, the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Bandar Division, Krishna District, in his counter-affidavit submitted as under: “Thereafter notices under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in Form-3 have been issued by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar on 10.02.2007 and the petitioner has rejected to receive the notice. The said notice was served by tying to a stick and fixed in the land on 23.02.2007. The petitioner has submitted his written objections on 26.02.3007 before the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar stating that he has filed a writ petition in the High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in W.P.No.2704 of 2007 and the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings WPMP.No.3469 of 2007 with regard to Gazette Notification No.G4/380/2007 dated 08.02.2007. In view of the interim orders granted by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents could not proceed further.” From the above-reproduced paragraph, it is clear that not only that the petitioner was made aware of the authority, who was entrusted with the function of holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, but the petitioner also submitted his written objections on 26.02.2007. In view of the same, I do not see any merit in this contention. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the written objections filed by the petitioner after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to him before proceedings further with the proposed acquisition. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3469 of 2007 and WVMP.No.2049 of 2007 are also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.01.2008 ES