THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4307 OF 2006, 2419, 3896 AND 6165 OF 2009 DATED:15.02.2010 Between: Rafeequllah Khan and others .. Petitioners And The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4307 OF 2006, 2419, 3896 AND 6165 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Though Interlocutory Applications are listed for hearing, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the main Writ Petitions themselves are being disposed of by this common order. Facts are taken from W.P.No.2419 of 2009. The petitioners own certain business premises in Punch Mohalla of Shalibanda, Hyderabad. The said properties are notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), for the purpose of road widening and orders were passed under Section 5-A of the Act. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners approached this Court earlier by way of filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.23367 of 2008, contending that they were not heard before passing such orders. This Court, accepting the plea of the petitioners by an order, dated 12.12.2008, quashed the orders passed under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, and directed the 2nd respondent - District Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, to pass orders afresh, after following due the procedure contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order, dated 02.01.2009, is passed vide proceedings No.C/191/2005, by the 3rd respondent - Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, and declaration was also published, as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act. In the present batch of Writ Petitions, the orders passed under Section 5-A (2) of the Act are questioned, apart from seeking to declare the 4(1) Notification and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, as illegal. The main case of the petitioners is that they were not given the opportunity of being heard, as contemplated under Section 5-A (2) of the Act. In the additional counter - affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on the earlier occasion, the 5-A enquiry record was placed before the 2nd respondent, who has considered the objections filed by the petitioners and disposed of such objections in terms of the orders passed by this Court, dated 12.12.2008, and passed orders vide proceedings No.C/191/2005, dated 02.01.2009, but, however, did not give the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. In terms of the provision under Section 5-A (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh, every objection filed under sub section (1) of Section 5-A, shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person, or by any person authorized by him in this behalf, or by pleader, and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any orders are to be passed. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the 2nd respondent, shall give an opportunity of being heard, to the petitioners, before passing an order under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, but, however, from the additional counter – affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is clear that no such opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioners. In view of the above said admitted position, which is evident from the additional counter - affidavit filed by 3rd respondent, the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.C/191/2005, dated 02.01.2009, and the consequential declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the 2nd respondent shall give an opportunity of being heard, to the petitioners with regard to the objections raised by them, and only thereafter, pass appropriate orders on such objections, and take further steps in accordance with law. If the petitioners want to place any further objections before the 2nd respondent, they can do so, within a period of two weeks from today. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th February 2010 KH