HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25943 of 2007 Dated: 21-1-2008 Between: Kanati Durga Prasad and three others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.Siva Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Asst.G.P. for Land Acquisition.. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25943 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notification dated 27-6-2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and declaration dated 17- 11-2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act, whereunder an extent of Ac.5.00 cents comprised in Survey Nos.199/30, 199/31 and 231/1 situated in Rangapuram village, Biccavolu Mandal, East Godavari District is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of Rangapuram village under II-Phase of Indiramma Scheme. The said notification envisaged enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners specifically averred in their affidavit that on receipt of notice to submit their objections, they filed their objections on 17-7-2007 and attended the office of the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, East Godavari district, on the scheduled date of enquiry, i.e., 30-7-07 at 11 AM. The petitioners also specifically averred that they and their father, who have attended the enquiry on the said date and time, found that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry (respondent No.2 herein), was not in his office and that they were informed that their objections will be considered and sent to the District Collector, East Godavari district (respondent No.1 herein). By order dated 3-11-2007 respondent No.1 rejected the objections of the petitioners. In pursuance of the said order, declaration dated 17-11-2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act, was published. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition questioning the said order of respondent No.1 and declaration dated 17-11-2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit, in which it is mentioned that the landowners filed their objections on 23-7-2007 and appeared before him on 30-7-2007, and that after completing the enquiry he submitted his report to respondent No.1, who passed orders on 3-11-2007 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed a reply-affidavit in which they specifically denied their appearance before respondent No.2 on 30-7-2007 and reiterated their allegation that when they went to the office of respondent No.2, he was not available and that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to them. At the hearing, Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioners. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that as mentioned in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2, the petitioners were present on 30-7-2007 before respondent No.2 and that they were given an opportunity of personal hearing. As could be seen from the above mentioned averments and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, their main grievance is that they were not given an opportunity of personal hearing by respondent No.2. It is legally well settled that Section 5- A of the Act affords a valuable opportunity to the owners of the land to put-forward their objections and the said provision is termed as heart of the Act by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments and one of the recent judgments being Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V. Darius Shapur Chenai(1) . The said provision was interpreted as casting an obligation on the Land Acquisition Officer to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the owners of the lands who raise objections to the proposed acquisition. Specific allegations were made by the petitioners in their affidavit and reply-affidavit stating that on 30-7-2007 respondent No.2 was not available in his office and that no personal hearing was conducted. Except vaguely mentioning that the petitioners were present and enquiry was held, respondent No.2 has not specifically denied the allegation that he was not available in his office on 30-7- 2007. He also failed to produce any evidence to show that he was available in his office at 11 AM on 30-7-2007 and that he conducted the enquiry by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. No record of hearing is produced on behalf of respondent No.2. I am, therefore, left with no option except to accept the submission of the petitioners that respondent No.2 failed to give the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing. I am, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and direct respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A afresh and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. -------------------------------------- Dt.21-1-2008 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J MNR (1) AIR 2005 SC 3520