IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 8962 of 2008 Between: 1 Bosetti Babu Rao, S/o. Pentaiah, R/o. Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Bosetti Satyanarayana, S/o. Pentaiah, R/o. Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Bosetti Suribabu, S/o. Pentaiah, R/o. Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Bosetti Bharam, S/o. Pentaiah, R/o. Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Bosetti Nageswara Rao, S/o. Pentaiah, R/o. Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada 3 Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notification u/sec. 4(1) of the Act followed by proceedings Ref.G2/6678/2007 dated 13-2-2008 proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners situated in RS No. 312/3 and 313/1 i.e., to an extent of Ac. 1.06 cents of 1st petitioner, Ac. 0.91 cents of 2nd & 3rd petitioners, Ac. 0.60 cents of the 4th petitioner & 5th petitioner, a total extent of Ac. 2.88 cents and Ac. 1.20 cents respectively situated at Yerravaram (V), Yeleswaram (M), East Godavari District, without conducting personal enquiry contemplated u/sec. 5A of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 29-1-2008 in WP No. 25268/2007 and for a consequential order to set aside the proceedings Ref. G2/6678/2007 dated 13-2-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent for acquiring the lands of the petitioners herein and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) proposing to acquire various extents of the petitioners’ lands situated in Yerravaram village, and also the consequential proceedings dated 13.2.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioners’ claim, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners assert that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands of an extent of Ac.2.88 cents and Ac.1.20 cents in R.S.Nos.312/3 and 313/1 respectively situated in Yerravaram village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District. While so, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 22.10.2007 proposing to acquire the lands in question for the purpose of providing house-sites to weaker sections. Then, the petitioners filed their objections. As the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is conferred with the powers to hold an enquiry into the objections, he issued a notice under Section 5(A) of the Act informing the date of enquiry as 15.11.2007. Questioning the said Notification and the consequential notice issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioners filed W.P.No.25268 of 2007, and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by an order dated 29.1.2008 with a direction to the respondents to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners taking the averment made in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent that section 5-A enquiry is not yet completed. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that in spite of the order dated 29.1.2008 passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent-District Collector, without there being any enquiry and without hearing the petitioners, issued the impugned proceedings, dated 13.2.2008 rejecting the objections raised by them. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The undisputed facts are that W.P.No.25268 of 2007 was disposed of on 29.1.2008, by which time, no enquiry was conducted as per the statement of the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. When such a statement is made, based on which, this Court disposed of the W.P.No.25268 of 2007, dated 29.1.2008 directing the 3rd respondent to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, it is curious to note that as per the impugned proceedings dated 13.2.2008, enquiry was over even before 29.1.2008. It may be apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned proceedings as under. “Enquiry under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act was conducted on 1.12.2007 after servicing notices in Form-3 to the land owners. With reference to Form-3 notice, the following landowners have filed their objections separately and combinedly. None of the land owners have attended to the personal hearing given to them on 1.12.2007 and the objections were submitted to this office personally on 14.11.2007 and 28.11.2007.” This shows the callousness on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in proposing to acquire the lands, holding enquiries, etc. Once this Court specifically directed the authority to hold an enquiry, it is incumbent on the part of the authority to hold such an enquiry and pass an order only after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. From the proceedings impugned, it is clear to the mind of this Court that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of being heard. Hence, the proceedings dated 13.2.2008 are liable to be set aside. In the result, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 13.2.2008 and consequently, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to hold a fresh enquiry into the objections filed by the petitioners only after issuing notices and affording them an opportunity of being heard. No costs. ______________ 23.04.2008 Note: Furnish copy by Monday B/o bcj