THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19101 of 2006 Dated 21st June, 2011 Between: P.Prakasam …Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore District, Nellore and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Jaya Prakash Babu Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.A.1764, dated 31.08.2006, and consequential proceedings taken out by the respondents to the extent of the lands viz., Ac.0.48 cents in Survey No.333/1, Ac.0.77 cents in Survey No.333/2, Ac.0.01 cents in Survey No.333/3, Ac.0.47 cents in Survey No.334/1 and Ac.0.61 cents in Survey No.334/2 of Vanjiwaka Village, Kota Mandal, Nellore District. Even though the petitioner raised several pleas, at the hearing, it has come out that the impugned order, by which, the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected cannot be sustained for the reason that the same was passed by the Sub-Collector, Gudur, who admittedly has no power or jurisdiction to pass such an order. Under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), it is only the appropriate Government, which is competent to dispose of the objections. However, having regard to the power of delegation contained under Section 3-A of the Act, the District Collectors are empowered to consider and dispose of the objections received under Section 5-A of the Act. Having regard to this admitted position, the impugned order and the consequential steps such as declaration under Section 6 of the Act and notices issued under Section 9 of the Act also become invalid. Sri G.Jaya Prakash Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that with the passage of time, the very need for acquiring the land for housing purposes itself does not any longer exist as the beneficiaries were given alternative sites. The petitioner is permitted to raise this and any further objections that may be legally sustainable by filing additional objections. In the event the respondents seek to proceed with the proposed acquisition proceedings, after considering the objections already filed and the additional objections, if any, that may be filed by the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24043 of 2006 and W.V.M.P.No.2561 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st June, 2011 VGB