ANUMALA NAGA PRASADA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole and short, but some what difficult, question that arises in these writ petitions is whether the District Collector, who has issued the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 1894 (herein after referred to as the Act' for short), is empowered or entitled to withdraw the said notification within the meaning of Section 48 (1) of the Act.

(2.) The case is that theDistrict by the amending provision of Section 4 (I) of the Act has been empowered to issue the Notification for the acquisition of the land under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Thereafter however, the District Collector, in the exercise of his discretion thought that the Notification has to be withdrawn. It is accordingly withdrawn by the issuance of a notification by the District Collector himself. It is that action which is impugned in these writ petitions.

(3.) Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 5592 of 1983 submits that the Section 48 (1)of the Act in terms explicity does not confer power on the District Collector as it confers power on the Government alone, and therefore, the District Collector who has admittedly withdrawn the notification herein, is not empowered and therefore the withdrawal notification must be declared void.