THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16777 of 2007 Date: 17.01.2008 Between: Marni Ammanna Chowdhary … Petitioner AND The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad. & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: C.V.R.Rudra Prasad Counsel for respondents: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16777 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order dated 22.7.2007 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short “the Act”). In the view I am proposing to take, it is not necessary to delve in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to state that in an earlier round of litigation, this Court while dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by different persons including the petitioner, set aside the order passed by the Joint Collector who disposed of the objections under Section 5A of the Act on the ground that he is not competent to do so and this Court gave liberty to the competent authority to take a decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, respondent No.2 passed order on 22.7.2007 whereby he rejected the objections filed by the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada – respondent No.3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.3 before sending his report has not given adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his counsel. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred as under: “ I submit that pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 31.8.2006 under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in Form-3, directing me to submit the objections statement if any, on or before 3.10.2006. Accordingly, I submitted my objections through my counsel on 3.10.2006. Though the 3rd respondent received the said objections, he did not conduct any enquiry and note down any of the legal aspects raised by my counsel during the course of the enquiry. However, the 3rd respondent simply stated that he will consider the written objections and pass appropriate orders.” The petitioner also filed affidavit of Sri Merla Suryanarayana, Advocate who represented the petitioner before respondent No.3 wherein he mentioned as under: “ I am an advocate and practicing in Kakinada. I appeared in the Land Acquisition proceedings, bearing No.B1/1032/2006 belonging to the petitioner and I attended on 30.10.2006 before the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings conducted under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act and filed the written objections of the petitioner with regard to the acquisition proceedings and at the time of filing the said objections, I requested the Land Acquisition Officer to hear the objections of the petitioner on receiving the documentary evidence sought to be relied upon by the petitioner. Then, the Land Acquisition Officer told that the date will be intimated for hearing the objections. Since then, the petitioner and myself have been waiting for the date of hearing his objections on the acquisition proceedings. In the meanwhile, the Joint Collector, East Godavari district passed an order rejecting the written objections without fixing the date for hearing the objections. I further submit that I advised the petitioner to approach the Hon’ble High Court as the said order was passed without giving opportunity for hearing the objections of the petitioner. As the facts stated above are personally known to me, I submit the same by way of this affidavit. Hence, this affidavit.” In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 he is totally silent on the issue of lack of opportunity. In para-9 of the counter affidavit respondent No.3 mentioned as under: “ In reply to the averments made in para-7 of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is submitted that it is a fact that pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 31.8.2006 under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in Form-3, directing the petitioner to submit the objections/statements if any, on or before 3.10.2006. It is submitted that they appeared before the respondent No.3 alongwith their Advocate and filed objections on 3.10.2006 but did not utilized the opportunity for personal hearing. Necessary action was taken on the objections filed and orders were communicated.” From the tenor of the statement of respondent No.3, I am not prepared to accept his contention that a meaningful opportunity was given to the petitioner. The petitioner’s Advocate filed solemn statement wherein it is categorically averred that he was informed by respondent No.3 that date will be intimated for hearing the objections. No specific reply in this regard has been filed except the stand taken by respondent No.3 in the above re-produced paragraph. Indubitably, Section 5A of the Act affords a valuable opportunity to the citizen to put forth his objections against the acquisition. Such an opportunity cannot be denied by the respondents while exercising the power of eminent domain. (See Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vs. Darius Shapur Chenai[1]) Since, I am convinced that an opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.7.2007 is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of the Act afresh by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17.01.2008 mdaa [1] (2005) 7 SCC 627