THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.Nos.17909, 17941, 17942, 17947, 17950, 17952, 17958, 17962, 17974, 17975, 18162, 18484, 18534, 18564, 18604, 18605, 18615, 18638, 18675, 18788, 18816, 19018, 19390, 19394, 19396, 19397, 19408, 19649, 19691, 19700, 19716, 19717, 19761, 19919, 19923 & 23183 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) All these writ petitions are posted before the Division Bench pursuant to the order passed by our learned brother Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy as the view expressed by his Lordship Mr.Justice L.Narasimha Reddy in W.P.Nos.18918 and 22261 of 1999 dated 11.12.2003 was not agreed by his Lordship Mr.Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy. The view expressed in W.P.Nos.18918 and 22261 of 1999 are as follows: “The ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that once this Court had directed that an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held, it is to be presumed that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act that was challenged in that batch of Writ Petitions is set aside. The submission may appear to be logically sound for the reason that an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has to precede the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. However, a perusal of the order of this Court in the said batch of Writ Petitions discloses that neither the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act nor the one under Section 6 of the Act were set aside though they were specifically challenged. In the absence of such an order, mere observation or direction that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held cannot be construed as resulting automatic setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. That being the case, it cannot be said that there was any legal infirmity in the award that was passed subsequently”. Sri S.R.Ashok, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners while emphasizing on the doctrine of sub-silentio has contended that holding of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act while the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is in existence cannot be visualised, therefore it should be construed that the said declaration was impliedly set aside. We have heard the arguments of both the counsel. The undisputed facts are that questioning the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) dated 25.5.1996 and 27.5.1996 respectively, W.P.Nos.15420, 16738 and 16740 of 1996 were filed and this Court by common order dated 20.10.1997 while disposing of the said writ petitions, held that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was not warranted, permitted the petitioners therein to file suitable objections before the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Kakinada within three weeks from 20.10.1997 and the Land Acquisition Officer was further directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with provisions of the Act. It is stated that W.P.No.16739 of 1996, which was not disposed of along with the batch, came up before Hon’ble Ms.Justice G.Rohini and the Hon’ble Judge by order dated 14.2.2007 disposed of the said writ petition in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.15420 of 1996 and the batch dated 20.10.1997. The petitioners herein filed the present batch of Writ Petitions to declare the proceedings of the respondents subsequent to the order dated 20.10.1997 in W.P.Nos.15420, 16738 and 16740 of 1996 and also order dated 14.2.2007 in W.P.No.16739 of 1996 including the award said to have been passed in respect of their respective lands as null and void. It is their case that they have filed objections to the award proceedings. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners have not filed their objections and therefore, question of conducting enquiry under Section 5A of the Act does not arise. He has further contended that an award enquiry was conducted and some of the petitioners attended the enquiry and awards were passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel further contends that any objections filed prior to the disposal of the writ petitions would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners as no representations were filed as per the directions in the writ petition. It is contended when in a writ petition it was directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act without setting aside the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, the issue as to whether the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act automatically stands set aside or survives would depend upon the order passed under Section 5-A enquiry proceedings. We are of the opinion that the question as to whether the declaration under Section 6 of the Act automatically stands set aside or survives is a mixed question of fact and law, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and subject to the outcome of the hearing of the objections under Section 5-A of the Act.. Therefore, we are of the view that it is for the learned Single Judge to ascertain as to whether any objections are filed for conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act pursuant to the orders of this Court. If no objections are filed, the question of conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act would not arise and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act holds good. If any objections filed and such objections are found tenable, the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act would be deemed to have been set aside, otherwise not. In view of the above, we direct the Registry to list these writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, having provision to hear the writ petitions relating to Land Acquisition to hear and dispose of the batch of writ petitions on merits. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 4.8.2011 DA