Judgment :- 1. For providing house sites to Arunthudhiars of Badakuppam village, certain lands in S. No. 644/1 and 644/2C measuring 0.30.5 hectares and 0.32.5 hectares were sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and the proposals therefor, were approved by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1477 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare dt. 7-8-89. The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Gudiyatham was authorised to exercise the powers conferred by sub-S. 2 of S. 4 and to perform the functions of a Collector u/S. 5-A of the Act. In this case, it is averred by the petitioner that the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupathur) conducted the enquiry u/S. 5-A of the Act and overruled the objections of the petitioner and this is contrary to the provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act. Hence the petitioners have filed the present writ petition to quash the declaration made under S. 6 of the Act made in G.O. Ms. No. 1491 Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare dt. 4-9-90 and to direct the respondents to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioners in S. Nos. 644-2C measuring 0.29.5 hectare and S. No. 644-1 measuring 0.25.0 hecatre respectively at Badakuppam hamlet of Pethur village, Vaniyambadi Taluk, North Arcot-Ambedkar District. 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by this court on 21-1-91. 3. The respondents have filed a counter. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the Notification u/S. 4(1) of the Act the Special Tahsildhar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Gudiyatham alone has been authorised to conduct the enquiry u/S. 5A of the Act and in this case the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare), Tirupathuir has conducted the enquiry u/S. 5-A of the Act and overruled the objections of the petitioner, contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and Rules made thereunder, and therefore, the whole acquisition proceeding is bad in law. This argument is countered by the respondents by contending that though the Special Tahsildhar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Gudiyatham, was originally authorised and empowered to conduct the enquiry u/S. 5-A of the Act, since the North Arcot District was bifurcated and Vaniyambadi Taluk was separated from the jurisdiction of Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Gudiyatham and attached under the control of Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Tirupathur, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupathur was authorised to perform the functions of the Collector to conduct the enquiry u/S. 5-A of the Act and there is no error of jurisdiction in this regard. 4. I have considered the arguments of the respective counsel and perused the relevant papers available on record. S. 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act defines the “Collector” including the Deputy Collector and any officer specifically appointed by appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. S. 4 deals with the publication of preliminary Notification and the powers of officers concerned. S. 5-A of the Act deals with hearing of objections and S. 6 of the Act deals with the declaration that the land concerned is required for a public purpose. A conjoint reading of the above provisions will clearly show that any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government under the Land Acquisition Act alone can conduct enquiry u/S. 5-A of the Act and any enquiry conducted by any other officer will be without jurisdiction, illegal and the same will be non-est in the eye of law. In this case it is not in dispute that originally in the notification issued u/S. 4(1) of the Act, the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Gudiyatham alone was specially appointed to conduct the enquiry u/S. 5A of the Act. My attention has not been drawn to any other notification issued by the Government specially authorising the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupathur to perform the functions of a Collector and to conduct the enquiry u/S. 5A of the Act. The reason given by the respondent that because there has been bifurcation and as a result of which Vaniyambadi Taluk comes under the jurisdiction of the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tirupathur he has conducted the enquiry u/S. 5-A of the Act, is not sustainable in law. He can do so provided if there is proper authorisation by the appropriate Government. He can do so provided if there is proper authorisation by the appropriate Government. In this case, the 3rd respondent has not been authorised to perform the functions of a Collector in the place of Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Gudiyatham, by any Notification. Consequently, the entire acquisition proceedings so far as the petitioners are concerned will stand set aside and the declaration is set aside. The writ petition will stand allowed. However, it is open to the respondents to exercise the power of eminent domain by issuing a fresh notification, if they so desire. No costs.