HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.1138 of 2009 Date : 16-6-2011 Between: Datla Venkata Laxmi Narasimharaju and others .. Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : A.G.P. for Irrigation Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : G.P. for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set- aside proceedings Ref.B1/366/05, dated 10-12-2008 of respondent No.3. The petitioners are the owners of certain lands which are notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") which was published in the newspapers on 16-7-2008, for the purpose of excavation of Indira Sagar Project (Polavaram) Left Main Canal. Respondent No.3 was appointed as Collector to discharge functions under Section 3(c) of the Act. The petitioners filed W.P.No.17348/2008 questioning the said notification. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 8- 8-2008 with the direction to the respondents to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and to give an opportunity to the petitioners to raise their objections. It was further observed that without considering the petitioners’ objections and passing an order thereon, the respondents shall not take any further proceedings under the Act. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioners have filed detailed objections before respondent No.3. By the impugned order, these objections were rejected. Questioning this order, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, mainly contended that respondent No.3 has denied proper opportunity to the petitioners to putforth their objections. He contended that the objections were filed jointly by the petitioners on 16-8-2008 before respondent No.3, that petitioner No.3 specifically requested the Land Acquisition Officer to give an opportunity of personal hearing on the objections raised by them after remarks are received from the requisitioning Department and that in spite of specific request, the same was overruled. On this premise, the learned counsel contended that the very purpose for which the enquiry was directed to be held was rendered nugatory. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, he has denied the allegation that proper opportunity was not given in the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act. It is further averred that the petitioners attended his office on 16-8-2008 along with their Advocate and filed their objections and that the petitioners again attended his office on 18-8-2008 for enquiry and reiterated the same objections which were already filed. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners were given proper opportunity to putforth their case and that they were represented by their counsel at the enquiry. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that it is stated therein that the petitioners have filed objections jointly on 16-8-2008 and that as some of the objections were technical in nature, they were referred to the Executive Engineer, ISP LMC Division, Tuni for his remarks. The order has set out the objections filed by all the petitioners and the remarks of the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), ISP LMC Unit-II. From these uncontroverted facts, it is evident that respondent No.3 has called for remarks from the technical officer with reference to the objections submitted by the petitioners. It is not the pleaded case of respondent No.3 that after the remarks were received from ISP LMC Division, Tuni, he has given an opportunity to the petitioners with reference to the technical remarks. As held by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai [1], Section 5-A is the heart of the Act and that the valuable right of a citizen to the property cannot be taken away by exercising the power of eminent domain without affording proper opportunity of being heard. After carefully considering all the facts on record, I am of the opinion that respondent No.3 has not afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to putforth their case effectively during the enquiry with reference to the remarks offered by the Executive Engineer, ISP LMC Division, Tuni on the technical aspects. Therefore, there is no option other than setting aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to furnish a copy of the remarks of the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), ISP LMC, Unit-II, Elamanchili/Executive Engineer, ISP LMC Division, Tuni to one of the petitioners on behalf of all of them and given an opportunity of personal hearing to them by fixing a specific date for enquiry. After hearing the petitioners, respondent No.3 shall pass a fresh order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, interim order dated 28-1-2009 in WPMP No.1439/2009 is vacated and the said application is disposed of. W.V.M.P.Nos.4281 and 4478 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 16-6-2011 AM [1] 2005(7) SCC 627