WP(C) 301/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASOK POTSANGBAM Heard Mr.A.M.Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.B.C. Choudhury, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam and Mr.B.C.Das, learned Sr. Counsel ass isted by Mr.H.Thakuria, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4. This petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the land involved in the case, has filed this petition challenging the communication-dated 12.12.2006 und er Memo No. BRLA.12/2005/163 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta and addr essed to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue (L.R.) Department, Dispur, Guwahati and the subject of the communication is as follows : Submission of L.A. proposal, L.A. Estimate and publication of notification U/S .4 (1) and declaration U/S. 6(1) of L.A.Case No.2/2005-2006 of Vill. Gobindapur, Mouza- Howly for Acquisition of land for Barpeta Road Bus Terminus . It appears that the apprehension of the petitioner stems from the fac t that the communication dated 12.12.200,as referred to above, sought for issua nce of a notification Under Section 4(1) of Assam Land Acquisition Act, 1894(her einafter referred to as the Act, 1894) as well as declaration Under Section 6(1) of the same Act, at a time, simultaneously thereby depriving the petitioner of his right to submit objection and hearing as provided under Section 5A of the A ct. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court on 18.11.2008, the Govern ment has produced the relevant records of land acquisition proceedings in questi on. It is found from the records that a proposal for acquisition of the land mea suring 7 Bigha, 1 Katha and 2 lecha was initiated by the Chairman of the Barpeta Road Municipal Board for the purpose of construction of a Bus terminus in the area proposed to be acquired. As a follow up action to the aforesaid proposal, a sum of Rs. 5,05,370.00, being the likely amount of compensation of the land, wa s deposited to the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta sometime in 2006 in two instal lments. However, because of an interim order dated 22.01.2007 passed by this Cou rt, the land acquisition proceeding came to a standstill, not proceeded further. Upon perusal of the records produced by the Government and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, there is no doubt that the land acquisition proceeding, under challenger, is one under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not under Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964. The records, further, reveal that the land acquisition proceeding in that case is only at proposal s tage and no notification U/S 4(1) of the Act has been issued till this day. It g oes without saying that once a notification U/S 4(1) of the Act, 1894 is issued, an opportunity to submit objection to the person interested in the land should be given in terms of Section 5A of the Act and the Collector after hearing such objection is to submit the proceeding along with his recommendation on the objec tion to the Government for a decision and the decision of the Government on the objection shall be final. Legal requirements and importance of the Section 5A(2) of the Act have been discussed and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in 2006(3) GLT 310 ( Sarungbam Joykumar Singh and ors Vs. State of Manipur and ors. and held that Section 5A of the Act confers a valuable impo rtant right , which is akin to fundamental rights . In view of the above, I propose to dispose of this case with the followi ng observations and directions that the procedural safeguards as provided by the Act, shall be strictly adhered to by the authority/Collector while conducting t he land acquisition proceeding under the Act. Further, in view of the statements made by the learned counsel appearing for the Government that the notification dated 4.1.2006 under A/C No.2/05-06, issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Colle ctor , Barpeta ,has already been withdrawn by the Government and as such there is no need to pass any order or comment on the aforesaid notification. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. In terim order, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.