IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5368 of 2008 Between: Dr. Koneru Chandrasekhar, S/o. Late Bhaskara Rao, Residing at U.S.A. Rep by his GPA Holder A. Jagadeeshwara Rao, 36-11-8, Shantingar, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada - 10. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer, cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Sec. 6 Declaration Rc. G4/5470/07 dt. 21-2-2008 which was published on 25-2-2008 in Indian Express Daily at Vijayawada expressing satisfaction in a casual manner, though the 2nd respondent did not consider all the objections and also did not consider the objections in the manner they are required to be considered as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, intentional and opposed to the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently quash the Sec. 6 Declaration Rc. G4/5470/07 dt. 21-2-2008 as illegal in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition with the following prayer: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Sec. 6 Declaration Rc. G4/5470/07 dt. 21-2-2008 which was published on 25-2-2008 in Indian Express Daily at Vijayawada expressing satisfaction in a casual manner, though the 2nd respondent did not consider all the objections and also did not consider the objections in the manner they are required to be considered, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, intentional and opposed to the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently to quash the Sec. 6 Declaration Rc. G4/5470/07 dt. 21-2- 2008 as illegal in the interest of justice” The brief facts are that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in question and that a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 17.11.2007. As enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted, the petitioner filed his objections stating that alternative lands are available and the land in question shall not be acquired. However, the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who received the objections, without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, prepared a report rejecting the objections of the petitioner and submitted the same to the first respondent, the District Collector. Pursuant to the said report, the District Collector passed an order on 25.01.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter, a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 21.02.2008. Questioning the same, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Having considered the entire material available on record, and as Section 5-A of the Act clearly lays down that the authority, who is holding the enquiry, shall consider the objections after affording personal hearing to the party concerned, this Court is of the view that the order, dated 25.01.2008, and the consequential draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act are liable to be set aside for the following reasons: (1) If the order, dated 25.01.2008, is looked at keeping in mind the said provision of law, it is clear that the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer had not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner at all. (2) The petitioner had categorically stated that the Government lands are available in Survey Nos.37, 73, 77 and 256. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered that aspect at all and in a vague manner prepared the report stating that the objection of the petitioner is not tenable, and the District Collector also simply followed the said report and rejected the claim of the petitioner. In the light of the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to come the conclusion that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and the consequential proceedings i.e., the order, dated 25.01.2008 of the District Collector and the draft declaration published under Section 6 of the Act on 21.02.2008 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the order of the first respondent, the District Collector, dated 25.01.2008, and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act are hereby set aside and the first respondent is hereby directed to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 18.03.2008 va