IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25572 of 2001 Between: Ramakrishnappa S/o Bandappa, R/o H.R.Palyam, Amidalagondi Village, Madakasira Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Madakasira Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the acquisition proceedings initiated under notification, dated 13.02.1999 and declaration, dated 03.03.2000 issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. The land admeasuring Ac.1.92 cents of the petitioner was notified for acquisition for the purpose of providing house-sites to the economically weaker sections of the Village. In pursuance of the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act, the petitioner filed his objections through his Advocate and the same were received on 30.03.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed 31.03.1999 as the date of enquiry. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner categorically averred that after sending his detailed objections to respondent No.2 through registered post with acknowledgement due, the petitioner went to his office on the scheduled date of enquiry and when he again wanted to submit further objections, he was asked to handover the same to the Head Clerk, which he did and that on that day, no enquiry was conducted. He further averred that he was informed by the office of respondent No.2 that a further date of enquiry would be intimated to him and that though he visited the office of respondent No.2 on many occasions, subsequently, no enquiry was conducted by him. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the absence of denial of specific averments made by the petitioner regarding lack of opportunity of personal hearing, the said averments deserve to be accepted. In a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and opportunity of personal hearing and held that denial of such an opportunity vitiates the acquisition proceedings (See Munshi Singh v. Union of India and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others) Since no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the subsequent proceedings, if any, including the award to the extent of Ac.1.92 cents of land of the petitioner are quashed. The respondents are given liberty to resume the acquisition proceedings from the stage of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In such an event, the respondents shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th AUGUST, 2008. kvni