IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5990 of 2008 Between: 1 V.Subba Rao S/o.Atchuta Ramaiah R/o.Gudlavalleru, Krishna District. 2 V.Dhana Lakshmi W/o.Atchuta Ramaiah R/o.Gudlavalleru, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector (Land Acquisition) Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer cum the Land Acquisition Officer, Gudiwada, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna 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 a writ, order or direction one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.G.4.3520/06 dt. 25.09.2006 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and contrary to Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently to set aside the same and the consequential declaration under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the Proceedings dated 25.9.2006 issued by the 1st respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners assert that they are the absolute owners of various extents of lands in various survey numbers situated in Kurada village, Gudlavalleru Mandal and in possession and enjoyment of them. While so, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer issued a Notification dated 8.8.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) and also a Notice under Section 5-A of the Act calling for their objections. In pursuance of the notice, the petitioners submitted their objections on 6.9.2006. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that the 1st respondent-District Collector, without considering their objections, issued the impugned proceedings proposing to acquire their lands for providing house sites to weaker sections. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. On an earlier occasion, when the rejection proceedings, dated 25.9.2006 were not furnished by the respondents, the petitioners filed W.P.No.25278 of 2006. In pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, the rejection proceedings were furnished to them on 23.2.2008. From a perusal of the rejection proceedings, it is clear that the petitioners raised so many objections, but those objections were not at all considered. Further, Section 5(A) of the Act mandates that persons, whose lands are under acquisition, shall be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, but the same is not done in the petitioners’ case. In the light of the above, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the proceedings dated 25.9.2006 furnished to the petitioners on 23.2.2008 are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in pursuance of the proceedings dated 25.9.2006 rejecting the petitioners’ objections, a Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published. If really, Draft Declaration was published, the same is also liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage and the impugned proceedings dated 25.9.2006 and the consequential Draft Declaration are hereby set aside. However, the 1st respondent-District Collector is again directed to consider the objections furnished by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording them an opportunity of being heard. No costs. _______________ 19.03.2008 bcj