*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.1361 of 2007 % 15.04.2010 # Yepuri Sambasiva Rao … Petitioner and $The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others … Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri K. Chidambaram ! Counsel for respondents: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. ? Cases Referred: -- HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1199 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of Acs.8-12 cents of land in T.Narsapuram Village and Mandal of West Godavari District. The District Collector, West Godavari, 1st respondent herein, published a notification, dated 20.05.2006, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) proposing to acquire the said land for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. He dispensed with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. The petitioners filed W.P.No.19701 of 2006. An interim order was passed in that writ petition directing that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, be held. 2. The Joint Collector, West Godavari District, 2nd respondent herein, issued notices, dated 05.10.2006, to the petitioners, proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and the petitioners submitted their objections on 19.10.2006. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 12.01.2007, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. The same is challenged in this writ petition, mainly on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 3. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the Joint Collector, 2nd respondent, is competent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that taking the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent into account, the 1st respondent has published a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 31.01.2007. It is also stated that in case this Court takes a view that it was not competent for the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the defect would be rectified. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 5. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published by the 1st respondent on 20.05.2006. He appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, 3rd respondent herein, as the Land Acquisition Officer. Though he invoked the urgency clause and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, it became obligatory on their part to conduct enquiry, in view of the interim direction granted by this Court in W.P.No.19701 of 2006. 6. It is only the authority, who issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, that shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Even the Land Acquisition Officer, the 3rd respondent, is not competent to conduct such enquiry. The 2nd respondent did not figure any where in the scheme. Neither he is the authority, who issued the notification, nor is the one designated as the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, it was not at all competent for him to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Hence the order, dated 12.01.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner is set aside. 7. The view expressed by this Court is, in fact, fortified by the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1888, Revenue (K), dated 31.12.1984. In this, it is directed that all the District Collectors shall exercise all the powers conferred and discharge all the duties imposed on the State Government under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act for the purpose of acquisition of land for provision of pathways to the Harijan Cheries and Weaker Sections Housing Colonies, etc. The power to be exercised under Section 5-A of the Act is equated to the one under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The inescapable equation is that it is only the authority, who issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, that can exercise the power under Section 5-A of the Act and not any authority including the Land Acquisition Officer. 8. The petitioners did not challenge the declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on 31.01.2007, obviously because it was passed after filing of the present writ petition. As a matter of fact, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings on 23.01.2007. Since the declaration dated 31.01.2007 is in contravention of the interim order passed by this Court and it is based upon the order dated 12.01.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent, it is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, is set aside. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 15th April, 2010. Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. (b/o) CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1199 of 2007 (Allowed) 15th April, 2010 Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. (b/o) CBS The short point, that arises for consideration in this case, is as to whether it is competent for the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, 2nd respondent herein, to conduct enquiry under Section 5(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”).