IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 557 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/11/2007 in WP NO : 17169 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Pothabathula Srinivasa Rao S/o.Late Satyanarayana Murthy R/o.D.No.70-17-32/6,R.R. Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 Motupalli Uma Maheswari W/o. Saibabu R/o.House No. 6-46/16/1, Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 Pothabathula parvathi W/o. Late Satyanarayana Murthy R/o.D.No. 70-17-32/6, R.R. Nagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary (LA) A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants :MR.VL.N.G.KMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 557 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) In this writ appeal, order dated 30th November 2007 passed in writ petition No.17169 of 2007 has been challenged. We have heard the learned advocates and have also perused the impugned order. The only submission, which was made before the learned single Judge was that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellants-original petitioners. The said submission was not believed by the learned single Judge for the reason that relevant detailed averments with regard thereto had not been made in the affidavit supporting the petition. It is an admitted fact that notice under Section 5-A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued to the appellants, but the appellants did not represent themselves personally before the authority. It is not in dispute that each and every objection filed by the appellants had been duly considered and a reasoned order had been passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada on the said objections. It is pertinent to note that the learned advocate appearing for the appellants before the learned single Judge did not make any submission on merits, about the order passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari, Kakinda. We do not accept the submission made by the learned advocate that no opportunity for personal hearing was given to the appellants. Once a notice had been given and if the appellants did not remain present before the authority, it cannot be said that personal hearing was not given to them. What is important is to afford an opportunity to give personal hearing. If the appellants did not remain present, the impugned order passed by the authority or by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be bad in law. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai[1]. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is very clear. If no opportunity is given for personal hearing, in our opinion, the aforesaid judgment will apply. But in the instant case, though opportunity was given to the appellants, but as the appellants did not avail that opportunity, in our opinion, the said judgment would not render any assistance to the appellants. In view of the above facts and more particularly in view of the fact that objections filed by the appellants had been duly considered by passing a reasoned order, we see no substance in this appeal, therefore, appeal is dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 13th June 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To 1 The Secretary (LA), Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. [1] 2005 (7) SCC 627