1. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification dated 1-9-2006 issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act").

2. I have heard Sri Karra Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

3. The petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.1-59 cents in Sy.Nos.248/5 and Ac.1-43 in Sy.No.248/7 of Indupalli village, Ungutur Mandal, Krishna District. By the impugned notification, they are proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections along with the lands of others. The objections raised by the petitioner, having been rejected in the purported enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. At the hearing Sri Karra Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly advanced three submissions. They are:

(i) While the impugned notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act by the District Collector, it is stated therein that the Government of Andhra Pradesh is satisfied that the land is needed for a specified public purpose. He therefore submitted that the District Collector being a different entity from the State Government, the notification suffers from violation of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this court in Pyda Lakshmi Vs. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (W.P.No.3016/2001 dated 30-10-2008);

(ii) In the impugned notification, respondent No.1 stated that under Section 3(c) of the Act, he has authorized the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid to perform the functions of the Collector and that as the power to make such appointment is vested only in the State Government, the appointment of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzuvid to perform the functions of the Collector, by respondent No.1, is illegal. The learned counsel relied upon the same Judgment in Pyda Laksmi (supra) in support of this submission as well; and

(iii) The enquiry was conducted and order rejecting the objections of the petitioner was passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively, who have no power or authority under the provisions of the Act and therefore the order rejecting the objections and the subsequent proceedings if any, shall be declared as nullity.

5. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition opposed the above submissions and produced the relevant file at the hearing.

6. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Pyda Lakshmi (supra) this court held that the State Government and the Collector being different entities under Section 4(1) of the Act, which have concurrent powers to issue notification for acquisition of private land for public purpose, the authority which issued the notification should have the satisfaction that the land is needed for a public purpose.

7. The learned Government Pleader has drawn a distinction between the case decided by this court in Pyda Lakshmi (supra) and the present case. He has placed reliance on the additional counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 wherein it is inter alia stated that the then District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam after satisfying himself about the requirement for acquisition of Ac.4-15 cents in R.S.No.248/5, 248/6 and 248/7 for public purpose, namely, for providing house sites under Indiramma scheme to the eligible beneficiaries belonging to weaker sections of Indupalli village, approved the draft notification. It is also stated that the District Collector, Krishna has approved the draft notification on his satisfaction about the requirement of land for public purpose. It is also averred that while sending the draft notification for publication in the Gazette and newspapers, the format of Form II-A as provided in the Act was adopted without making necessary corrections in the printed format and th