IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24465 of 2008 Between: 1 Bhavanam Rami Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, r/o.Lankela Kurapadu, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District. 2 Bhavanam Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy, R/o. 1st Line, Maruthinagar, Old Guntur, Guntur District. 3 Boggavarapu Krishna Prasad, S/o. Rosaiah, R/o. Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 4 Pambi Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Prasada Reddy, r/o. D.No. 15-13-245, RTC Colony, Guntur City, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl. Secretary Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Guntur District, Guntur. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer, Guntur Division, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating land acquisition proceedings by issuing Section 4(1) notiﬁcation vide Rc.No. 1102/08/G1, dated 28-3-2008 and in proceedings to acquire the small extents of Agricultural land held by the petitioners in sy.Nos. 66/A and B of Etukuru Village, Guntur Mandal and District, without eﬀectively conducting a Section 5-A enquiry and without according an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and violative of Article 300-A of the constitution of India and set-aside the Section 4(1) notiﬁcation date 28-3-208 and all other consequential proceedings and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the lands of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The District Collector, Guntur, issued notiﬁcation, dated 02.04.2008, proposing to acquire Acs.7.61 cents of land in survey Nos.66/A and 66/B of Etukuru Village, Guntur District. The lands of the petitioners were also included therein. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) is said to be in progress. The grievance of the petitioners is that neither the second respondent, nor the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, are dealing with the objections raised in the enquiry and that the matter was entrusted to a subordinate oﬃcial. They contend that the only remedy available to a citizen vis-à-vis compulsory acquisition, cannot be relegated to such levels. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Section 5-A of the Act itself is very clear as to the manner in which the enquiry must be conducted. Sub- section (2) places an obligation on the District Collector to deal with the objections. Though in some cases, the necessary information may be obtained from subordinate oﬃcials, ultimately the Collector has to give personal hearing and pass the orders under Section 5-A of the Act. Any deviation, in this regard, is prone to have its eﬀect on the entire proceedings. In its decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others[1], the Supreme Court had emphasized the importance of conducting of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners were not sure as to whether any declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published so far. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to get necessary instructions, on this aspect. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that in case no declaration under Section 6 of the Act, in pursuance of the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, published on 02.04.2008, in respect of the lands of the petitioners; was published, respondents 2 and 3 shall give personal hearing to the petitioners and consider their objections in accordance with law. On the other hand, if a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published, it shall be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies vis-à-vis the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Dt.17.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ [1] (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 627