THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.1146 of 2007 Date: 28.01.2008 Between: Pinnamaneni Srinivasulu & others. … Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Revenue (L.A.), Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Satyanarayana Nimmagadda Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.1146 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare notification dated 07.10.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), whereby an extent of Ac.6.00 cents in Sy.Nos.519/2A and 520/1C of Perikedu Village is proposed for acquisition, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a consequential declaration published on 09.01.2007 under Section 6 of the Act, as illegal and unconstitutional. By the impugned notification, the abovementioned extent of Ac.6.00 cents belonging to the petitioners was proposed to be acquired. In response to the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act on 04.10.2006, the petitioners submitted their objections on 19.10.2006. They further claimed that on 20.10.2006 they made application for supply of certain information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is the specific case of the petitioners that on 20.10.2006, which was fixed for holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, petitioner No.1 appeared before respondent No.3, but however, respondent No.3 informed that he will be summoned later for enquiry. It is further averred that the petitioners submitted further objections on 20.11.2006 and were waiting for a further notice from respondent No.3 for enquiry and that without any such notice being issued and enquiry held, respondent No.2 issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 09.01.2007. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners advanced two contentions, namely, i) that without conversion of the agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, the proposed acquisition of the petitioners’ lands is illegal, and (ii) that respondent Nos.2 and 3 violated the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, under which the petitioners are entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing, by denying them such an opportunity and that therefore declaration under Section 6 of the Act is liable to be set aside. As regards the first contention, this Court in judgment dated 28.12.2007 passed in Writ Petition 18881 of 2006 and batch rejected a similar contention. Therefore, the first contention fails and is accordingly rejected. With regard to the second contention, respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he denied the allegation that the petitioners were denied an opportunity of hearing. It is further averred as under: “The 3rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner on 04.10.2006 to attend 5A enquiry on 26.10.2006. On 26.10.2006 the petitioner attended enquiry and deposed his objection stating that he purchased an extent of Ac.11.54 cents in favour of the petitioner and he divided the land to his family members as such he is a small farmer and requested for exemption of his land from acquisition. As the objections filed by the petitioner are not acceptable, and hence the objections are over ruled and further declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was approved by the Collector, Krishna and published in District Gazette issue No.4/2007 dated 04.01.2007 and published in Andhrajyothi on 09.01.2007.” From the averments contained in the above-reproduced para, I am unable to decipher a proper meaning of its contents. Be that as it may, respondent No.3 failed to specifically controvert the allegation contained in the affidavit of the petitioners that on 26.10.2006 petitioner No.1 was informed that the enquiry will be adjourned to another date. Moreover, respondent No.3 failed to advert to and explain whether he received the additional objections claimed to have been sent by petitioner No.1 on 20.11.2006 and if so, whether he adverted to those objections before he sent his report to the Collector for passing orders on the objections filed by the petitioners. The respondents also failed to produce any record to convince this Court that on 26.10.2006 respondent No.3 held enquiry by recording the statement of petitioner No.1. In the absence of the effective denial of the specific averments made by the petitioners and the material to substantiate the stand of the respondents that proper opportunity was given to the petitioners on 26.10.2006, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that respondents failed to hold proper enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The law is well settled that Section 5A of the Act provides for a valuable opportunity to the owners of the lands, who intend to file their objections and the land acquisition officer cannot deny such a valuable right to the land owners. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed. Declaration dated 09.01.2007 is set aside. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners before proceeding further with the proposed acquisiution. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.1460 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.01.2008 ES