IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 3022 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- MESSRS. CHEMBRA PEAK ESTATES LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT #2, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, RMS LAYOUT (POST OFFICE ROAD), SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 094, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, L.K.MOHTA. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SRI.R.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.M.H.HANIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE B DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 4. THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KINFRA HOUSE, ANNEXE, TC NO.9/2585, ELANKAM GARDENS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. W.P.(C) NO.3022/2008 *ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED * 6. KERALA STATE BIODIVERSITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (IMPLEADED AS 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER IN IA 5067/08 IN WP(C)3022/08 DATED 10/04/08). *ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED 7. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS ADDL. RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD. 30.04.09. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR R1 – R3 BY ADVOCATE GENERAL R4 BY SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN R5 BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA R6 BY SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR, SMT.GEETHA P.MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 32508 OF 2007 WPC NO. 22552 OF 2007 THE COURT ON 10/03/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.3022/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 6.9.2005 ISSUED BY SENIOR LIAISON OFFICER OF COFFEE BOARD, KALPETTA. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF KINFRA DTD. 28.9.2006. P3:- COPY OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 15.11.2006. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15.122.2006 SENT BY PETTIIONER TO MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES. P5:- COPY OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT DTD. 11.1.2007 SET UP BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER OF DTD. 12.1.2007 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, COFEE BOARD. P7:- COPY OF THE NEW ITEM IN ECONOMIC TIMES DTD. 16.12.2006. P8;- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.1464/2006/ID DTD. 28.12.2006. P9:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 28.12.2006 FROM KINFRA TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR , WAYANAD. P10:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 7.9.2007 ISSUED TO BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR , WAYANAD. P11:- COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DTD. 31.7.2007 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. P12:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY KINFRA TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. P13:- COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALAM MANORAMA DTD. 7.1.2008. P14:- COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE WARIYAT ESTATE ON A FIELD VISIT BY THE KERALA STATE BIODIVERSITY BOARD. P15:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 7.5.2007 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P16:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 2.6.07 APPEARD IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DALY DT. 10.6.07. P17:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P17(a):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 7.6.05 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN, COFEE BOARD, BANGALORE. P17(b):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 12.11.202 OF THE COFFEE BOARD, BANGALORE. W.P.(C) NO.3022/2008 P17(c):- COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION APPEARD IN HINDU DAILY DTD. 25.6.2005. P17(d):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 17.2.2007 OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PLANTERS OF KERALA. P17(e):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 16.3.2006 OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PLANTERS OF KERALA. P17(f):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 28.6.2004 OF THE ASOCIATION OF PLANTERS OF KERALA. P18:- COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSEMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2002-2003. P18(b):- COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. P18(c):- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2003-04. P18(d):- COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. P18(e):- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05. P18(f):- COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. P18(g):- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006. P18(h):- COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. P18(i):- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2006-07. P18(j):- COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. P18(k):- COPY OF THE RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. P19:- COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE PLANTAION TAX PAID FOR THE PERIOD 2002 TO 2006, CERTIFIED BY THE MUTTIL SOUTH VILLAGE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.589/07/ID DTD. 7.5.2007. R3(b):- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION. R3(c):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(C4) 29522/08 DTD. 15.7.08. W.P.(C) NO.3022/2008 R3(d):- PUBLISHED COPY OF THE DESABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 15.8.2008. R4(a):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.798/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. R4(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 7.5.07. R4(c):- COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 11.6.2007. R4(d):- COPY OF THE PAPER CUTTING FROM MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWS PAPER DT.D 4.1.08. R4(e):- COPY OF THE KERALA GAZETTE DTD. 11.6.07. R4(f):- COPY OF THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE KERALA LAND ACQUISITION ACT. R4(g):- NOTICE DTD. 5.7.07. R4(h):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11.3.2001 SENT BY THE PETITIONER AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS 2001-02 ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURNS SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER. R4(i):- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS 02/03. R4(j):- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDER 2003-04. R4(k):- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS 2004-05. R4(l):- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS 2005-06. R4(m):- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS 2006-07. R4(n):- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS (NOT ASSESSED) 07-08. R4(o):- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RETURNS AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS (NOT ASSESSED) 2008-09 PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT. R4(p) :- COPY OF THE WRITE UP ON THE PROPOSED INTEGRATED MEGA AGRO FOOD PARK IN WAYANAD DISTRICT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos.3022/2008-I, 22552/2007-I & 32508/2007-T - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT These writ petitions concern a common issue and therefore they are considered together for disposal. 2. The challenge is against acquisition of a coffee estate, called 'Wariyat' estate, of which the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3022/2008 is the owner. W.P.(C) No. 22552/2007 is filed by the leader of a trade union representing the workers of the estate and W.P.(C) No.32508/2007 is filed by another trade union leader. W.P.(C) No.3022/2008 is taken as the leading case and the pleadings and exhibits are mentioned and discussed as available therein. 3. The fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.3022/2008 is the Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (shortly known as “KINFRA”) who is the requisitioning authority. The extent of land involved is 392 acres which belongs to the petitioner company. The purpose of acquisition is for establishing a Mega Agro Food Park in Wayanad district which is a project being funded by the Government of wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 2 India. It envisages setting up of basic infrastructure necessary for industries that could be set up by Private entrepreneurs and/or Governmental agencies which will be engaged in the processing of food products. 4. Ext.P2 is the proposal forwarded by the KINFRA to the Government dated 28.9.2006 wherein a request is made to grant administrative sanction for acquiring the estate in question. The purpose shown is “setting up of the proposed Mega Agro Food Park, Wayanad.” 5. The case of the petitioner, shortly, is the following: It is pointed out that several other suitable lands are available in Wayanad district which could be utilised for the purpose. A well run coffee plantation need not be acquired. It is further pointed out that the purpose is extremely malafide. It is one of the best coffee estates in the whole of South India. Administrative sanction was granted by the Government without taking into consideration various aspects and there is total non application of mind. The company is 74 years old and is listed in the Madras and Bangalore Stock Exchanges. It has got 1200 shareholders. 350 acres out of 392 acres is planted with Robusta Coffee, 10 acres with Arecanut and 5 acres with cardamom. The wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 3 split up of the number of plants are as follows: a. Coffee 1,40,000 plants b. Cardamom 2,000 plants c. Arecanut 4,000 plants d. Pepper 3,000 plants e. Shade trees More than 5,000 Nos. It is pointed out that the shade trees include rose wood. Muttil river flows by the rear boundary of the estate. It is also pointed out that the shade trees and the other planted trees have immensely contributed to the greenery that is available to the area. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the estate is one of the best in the whole of State going by the productivity of coffee per acre, as the average productivity of Wariyat Coffee Estate is 1000 kgs. per acre and in other places it is around 300 kgs. per acre. There are 62 permanent workers, 30 temporary workers and it employs about 400 workers during the season. Thus, nearly 1500 persons are directly depending upon the estate for their livelihood. The petitioner company contributes large amounts to the State exchequer by way of agricultural income tax, sales tax, plantation tax, wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 4 building tax, etc. 7. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the park only offers the basic infrastructure for setting up industries by Private Entrepreneurs and Governmental agencies. But as a first step the entire plantation will have to be decimated in anticipation of such industries and there are no materials available with regard to the future projects and therefore the entire exercise may become futile. In this context, it is further pointed out that the KINFRA has proposed to acquire 67.19 acres of land in Kalpetta Village for expansion of the existing KINFRA Small Industries Park in Wayanad District and the Government permitted the same as per G.O.(Rt) No.901/2005/ID dated 7.9.2005. After the steps for acquisition advanced much, it was not proceeded with once the KINFRA knew about the financial aspects of acquisition. It is pointed out that ignoring all these, the proposal for acquisition as per Ext.P2, was forwarded to the Government. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Ext.P3 report forwarded by the District Collector to the Government after assessing the viability of the project and according to the petitioner, the wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 5 observations are against the acquisition of the estate. Ext.P4 is the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Government, to drop the project, wherein a personal hearing was sought. Ext.P5 is the report of the Committee appointed by the District Collector consisting of various officers including the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Principal Agricultural Officer, Joint Director (Extn), Coffee Board, Kalpetta, etc. wherein they have gone into the propriety of establishing a mega agro food park in the area and they have expressed their reservation in the matter. Ext.P6 is the communication addressed by the Chairman of the Coffee Board, to the District Collector requesting to relocate the proposed project to some other place, in view of the importance of the Estate. 9. Initially, after the Government granted administrative sanction as per Ext.P8 order, the urgency clause was invoked under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. This was challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) No.798/2007 by the petitioner which was disposed of by Ext.R4(a) judgment. The writ petition was closed leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to challenge the acquisition proceedings once the notification is issued. But subsequently, the urgency clause was not invoked and wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 6 notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11.6.2007 as evidenced by Ext.R4(c). Pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner as per Ext.P10, objections were submitted before the District Collector as per Ext.P11. KINFRA filed their counter affidavit to the said objection as per Ext.P12. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector, Kalpetta conducted a hearing and forwarded the report to the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is at that stage this writ petition was filed since the petitioner felt that the newspaper report showed that the Government had already taken a decision in the matter. 10. Initially, the main prayer sought in the writ petition was to quash Exts.P8 and P9 and to direct the Government to take a fresh decision in the light of Ext.P3 report of the District Collector and Ext.P4 representation of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the KINFRA, as well as respondents 1 and 2, the order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner after the enquiry under Section 5A, has been produced. Exts.R3(c) is the order and R3(d) is the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, by way of amendment, the petitioner has added a prayer to quash those proceedings also, apart from Exts.P15 and P16 produced along wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 7 with I.A. No.7227/2008. 11. Heard Shri K. Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.K. Damodaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for KINFRA and Shri K.V. Majonkumar, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the State. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Shri K. Ramakumar appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that the respondents have erred in taking a decision to acquire the estate in question, as the suitability of the land for the purpose has not been established at all. Great emphasis was made on the contents of the report submitted by the District Collector, Ext.P3, of the Technical Committee appointed by the District Collector, Ext.P5 and the communication by the Coffee Board objecting the proposal for acquisition. It is submitted that the Land Revenue Commissioner has not considered any of these aspects on merits. These reports have thus been ignored. Therefore, the decision is taken without any application of mind and is unreasonable. It is pointed out that even the report of the District Collector points out various other locations including the land held by a co-operative society, which are available and which are suitable. None of these aspects wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 8 have been considered. It is further pointed out that the acquisition at the instance of KINFRA itself is a colourable exercise. They are not running the food park and they want only to acquire the land and allot to other entrepreneurs. Conversion of large items of agricultural lands for industrial purpose will create ecological imbalance. It is pointed out that even in the industrial and commercial policy of 2007 emphasis is given for the industrial development without affecting ecology and environment. It is further pointed out with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Infrastructural Development Act, 1993 that industrial area alone can be developed by KINFRA and there is no provision therein for conversion of agricultural area. It is pointed out that no notification has been issued under the said Act also. 13. One of the main contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is by relying upon Ext.P14 which is a report submitted by the Kerala State Biodiversity Board and it is pointed out that the said report also supports the case of the petitioner, as they have stated that it is one of the Asia's best coffee plantations with very high yield, rich in biodiversity and therefore they were of the view that the estate will have wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 9 to be retained in the present condition and some other less productivity area within Wayanad may be acquired. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was only an eye wash. The Deputy Collector heard the matter and it is not known when the report was forwarded to the Land Revenue Commissioner. A copy of the report was also not furnished to the petitioner, before taking decision and the Land Revenue Commissioner did not offer any personal hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the same violates the principles of natural justice. It is also pointed out that the objections raised by the petitioner even though were comprehensive, none of the objections have been considered on the merits. It is therefore pointed out that the entire exercise is a colourable exercise of power. It is also pointed out that the entire extent of land is not required for the project, as the scheme of the Central Government will not show that such large extents of lands are required. 15. Thus, it is contended that there is clear refusal to consider material facts and the administrative sanction granted by the Government is without taking due note of the relevant aspects including the reports of the wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 10 various functionaries. Heavy attack is thus made on the decision making process. By relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and others {(2007) 8 SCC 705}, it is contended that right to property is not only a constitutional right but human right also, and no person can be deprived of it without any authority of law. 16. These contentions are opposed by the learned Senior Counsel Shri M.K. Damodaran, appearing for the KINFRA, who pointed out that as far as public purpose is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that the public purpose has been clearly established. Therefore, it is up to the Government to take a decision after considering various aspects. The preference of the petitioner cannot have any value at all, if the Government feels that the purpose is for the establishment of a mega agro food park and that the land proposed is suitable. It is further pointed out that once the Land Revenue Commissioner who is the authority under Section 5A has rejected the objections after due enquiry, Ext.P3 report of the District Collector relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner or the objections by the Coffee Board, have no real value. The location of the wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 11 mega food park was fixed by the technical committee of the KINFRA after assessing various aspects including the accessibility from National Highway and proximity to town. The entire area is required for establishing the food park including for cultivation of the agricultural produces and for other allied activities. It is further pointed out that there is no violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 5A of the Act as the Act only envisages hearing of objections by the Deputy Collector and for forwarding a report and the Land Revenue Commissioner will have to take a decision in the matter. It is pointed out that once the declaration has been published by the Government, it is the conclusive evidence as regards the public purpose and it cannot be successfully attacked in a writ petition like this. The petitioner has not established any grounds like malafides or colourable exercise of power. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court in support of the above contentions. 17. The above contentions were supported by the learned Govt. Pleader who submitted that a second opportunity is not envisaged under the provisions of the Act. It was argued that Exts.P3 and P5 are not authentic reports. wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 12 18. The first contention therefore to be considered is whether there is any violation of Section 5A of the Act. The procedure for hearing objections shows that under Section 5A(1), the objections will have to be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Sub-section (2) is important for the purpose of this case which is extracted below: “(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by counsel and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land.-- (i) to the Government where the notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4 was published by the Government; (ii) to the Board of Revenue, where the notification under sub-section (10 of Section 4 was published by the Board of Revenue or by himself containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the Government or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be. The decision of the Government wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 13 or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be, shall be final.” Going by sub-section (2), objections will have to be submitted to the Collector in writing and the Collector will have to give an opportunity of being heard and after hearing the objector and after conducting due enquiry, he shall make a report to the Government wherein the notification under Section 4(1) was published by the Government or to the Board of Revenue (now the Land Revenue Commissioner) wherein the notification under Section 4(1) is published by the Board of Revenue, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the Government or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be. 19. The main argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that no personal hearing was offered by the Land Revenue Commissioner. The proceedings of the Land Revenue Commissioner has been produced as Ext.R3(c). A reading of Ext.R3(c) shows that in order to conduct Section 5A enquiry, Form No.4(c) notices were issued and the hearing was posted to 27.9.2007. As both parties requested to postpone the hearing date, the hearing was held on 27.10.2007. After referring to the wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 14 objections made by the petitioner and the statement filed by the KINFRA, it is mentioned in the report that the District Collector as per reference cited 6, has recommended the report of the Land Acquisition Officer and the District Collector, Wayanad and the remarks of the requisition authority and connected records, and considering the importance and public interest of the land acquisition, rejected the objection. 20. Evidently, no second opportunity was given to the petitioner. There is serious dispute whether a second opportunity is contemplated at all. Obviously, Section 5(2)(ii) of the Act does not contemplate a second opportunity of personal hearing to the objector. It is therefore pointed out by learned Senior Counsel Shri Damodaran that there is no non compliance of any procedural provisions of Section 5A of the Act. Evidently Section 5A(2) allows hearing by the Collector who will have to forward a report containing his recommendations on the objections, together with record of the proceedings for the decision of the Government or the Land Revenue Commissioner. This being the statutory scheme, it is evident that no second opportunity of personal hearing after the recommendations have been made by the District Collector, is envisaged under the Act. wpc 3022/08, 22552/07 & 32508/2007 15 21. Heavy reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri Ramakumar, of the decision of the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others {(2005) 7 SCC 627} in this context. It is pointed out that Section 5A confers a valuable right. Therein,