Judgment : The power of the State Government in alienating the land belonging to the 4th respondent-Agricultural Market Committee vide orders in G.O.Rt.No.7, Agriculture and Cooperation (Mktg.II) Department, dated 03.01.2007 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners are agriculturists and are residing within the area of operation of the 4th respondent-Agricultural Market Committee. Though, in the beginning, the Market Committee owned Acs.42.29 cents of land, after construction of godowns, platforms, rest houses for farmers and allotment of certain land to A.P. State Warehousing Corporation, A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad and Food Corporation of India, the Market Committee is presently having Acs.11.08 cents of vacant land. 3. It appears that on a proposal mooted by a Member of Parliament for opening a Kendriya Vidyalaya at Tenali, the land of the 4th respondent-Agricultural Market Committee was proposed to be allotted. The proposals were submitted to the Government, in that regard, through the Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Hyderabad and the District Collector, Guntur District, respondent Nos.2 and 3, respectively, who recommended the allotment of an extent of Acs.10.00 cents of land to the 5th respondent-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan. Thereupon, the 1st respondent-State Government issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.7, dated 03.01.2007 according permission for allotment of the land. The said G.O. is under challenge in this writ petition on the substantive ground that the State Government is not competent to part away with the land of the 4th respondent-Market Committee. 4. According to the petitioners, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for brevity “the Act”), the Market Committee is a Body Corporate and, as such, it alone is competent to dispose of the property. The petitioners state that the land is required for the use of the farmers and the same cannot be alienated for any other purpose. 5. The 1st respondent-State Government has filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the land has been allotted in the interest of public and only as per the recommendations of the District Collector and the Commissioner and Director of Marketing. The 1st respondent contends that under Section 33 of the Act, read with Rule 143 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 (for brevity “the Rules”), State Government is competent to alienate the land. 6. The 1st respondent contends that under Section 33 of the Act, read with Rule 143 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 (for brevity “the Rules”), State Government is competent to alienate the land. 6. The 4th respondent-Agricultural Market Committee has filed counter affidavit stating that there is a pressing need to retain the land for the benefit of the farmers and traders, not only for the present, but also for the foreseeable future. Several activities, such as construction of cold storage, establishment of soil testing centre, vegetable and fruits market and construction of godowns are proposed to be undertaken and the Market Committee has already passed a resolution, in that regard, on 29.9.2006. Hence, in view the said requirements and in order to protect the interests of the farmers and traders, it has already passed a resolution bearing No.74, dated 29.11.2006 expressing its unwillingness to part away with the land to the 5th respondent-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 8. There is no dispute that the subject land belongs to the 4th respondent-Agricultural Market Committee. Under Section 4 of the Act, the Government is competent to constitute a Market Committee and the Committee so constituted shall be a Body Corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and can sue or be sued by its Corporate name. Thus the Market Committee is a separate legal entity in which power is specifically vested to hold and dispose of the property. Thus, by virtue of being a Body Corporate, the land stands vested in the Market Committee, clothing it with all ownership rights. Therefore, the Market Committee alone is competent to deal with such property. 9. Indisputably, in the instant case, the 4th respondent-Agricultural Market Committee is not willing to alienate its property and it has accordingly adopted a resolution against the said alienation. 10. I am not in agreement with the contention of the 1st respondent-State Government that it is competent to alienate the property under Section 33 (2) (vii) of the Act and Rule 143 (2) of the Rules. Section 33 of the Act envisages the rule making power of the State Government. 10. I am not in agreement with the contention of the 1st respondent-State Government that it is competent to alienate the property under Section 33 (2) (vii) of the Act and Rule 143 (2) of the Rules. Section 33 of the Act envisages the rule making power of the State Government. Clause (vii) to sub-section (2) of the said Section is only an enabling provision with regard to acquisition of land by the Market Committee under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Rule 143 (2) of the Rules is again a power given to the State Government to the extent of specifying the manner in which the acquisition, purchase and disposal of the properties of the Market Committee shall be made. The said Rule per se does not invest any power in the State Government to alienate the properties of the Market Committee. No other provision is available in the Act vesting power in the State Government, in this regard. 11. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and hence it is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order in G.O.Rt.No.7, dated 03.01.2007. No order as to costs. 13. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3008 of 2007 is dismissed as unnecessary.