HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25268 of 2007 29.01.2008 Between: B.Babu and others … Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25268 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the proposed acquisition of lands admeasuring of Ac.1.06 cents, 0.91 cents, 0.91 cents, 0.60 cents and 0.60 cents (total Ac.2.88 cents) and Ac.1.20 cents belonging to the petitioners comprised in Survey Nos.312/3 and 313/1 respectively situated at Yerravaram Village, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. At the hearing, it is contended that notice under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was signed by respondent No.3 on 15.11.2007 and served on the petitioners on 23.11.2007 and that the date for filing objections was given as 29.11.2007. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, under Form 3, respondents are required to give 15 days time to file their objections, but the above-mentioned facts revealed that they were given only six days time for filing their objections. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is averred as under: “….The petitioners were given due opportunity of personal hearing to attend the 5A enquiry on 1.12.2007 and to file objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioners have received Notices under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and have filed their objections before the Land Acquisition Officer on 29.11.2007 for acquisition of their land, but they have not chosen to attend the 5-A enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer on 1.12.2007. Therefore, the petitioners cannot contend that they have not been given personal hearing by the Land Acquisition Officer.” The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit to controvert the above-reproduced averments. Whether 15 days time as required under Form No. 3 is given or not lost its relevance in view of the fact that the petitioners have filed their objections. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that since the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is not completed, the petitioners could participate in the same. In view of the facts mentioned above, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if respondent No.3 gives the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing on holding enquiry under Section 5A afresh. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to hold enquiry by giving the petitioners opportunity of personal hearing. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.32951 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JANUARY, 2008. kvni