IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR Writ Appeal No.932 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/08/2008 in Writ Petition No. 9962 of 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) Shaik Hasan, s/o late Mohd.Yaseen, at T.S.No.13, Ward- 217, Block-A, Panch Mahal, Near Charminar. 2) Noor Mohammed, s/o Lal Mohammed, at T.S.No.7, Ward -217 Block-A, Panch Mahal, Near Charminar. 3) A.A.Rasheed, s/o Abdul Lateef, at T.S.No.9, Ward-217, Block-A, Panch Mahal, near Charminar. 4) Rasheed Ahmed, s/o late Manzoor Hussain, at T.S.No.16, Ward-217, Block-A, Panch Mahal, Near Charminar. 5) Mohd.Abdul Muqeet, s/o Hafiz Abdul Wahab, at T.S.No.17, Ward -217, Block-A, Panch Mahal, Near Charminar. ... APPELLANTS AND 1) The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2) The Spl. Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep., by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4) The Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for respondent No.3: MR. R. RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following: J U D G M E N T : (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9962 of 2006, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. 2. The grievance ventilated in the petition was with regard to the acquisition of their lands referred to in the petition. It was the case of the appellants-petitioners before the learned Single Judge that the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities while acquiring the lands in question was not proper and as provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) had not been complied with, the proceedings were vitiated. 3. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants that Section 4 (1) notification under the Act had been issued and thereafter, notices under Section 5-A of the Act had been given so as to permit the petitioners to file their objections. 4. It was the case of the petitioners that objections had been filed by them before respondent No.2 – Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad but the same had not been duly considered by the Collector, namely, respondent No.4 and no recommendation was made by him. 5. After considering the afore-stated submission and other submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and upon hearing the learned advocate for the respondents, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition and being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this appeal has been filed. 6. We have heard the learned advocates and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, which had been filed before the learned Single Judge. 7. Even before this Court, it is the case of the appellants that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, had not been made properly. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that upon issuance of notices under Section 5-A of the Act, the appellants had filed their objections. The said objections ought to have been considered by the Collector, as provided under Section 5-A of the Act. After considering the objections, the Collector ought to have made necessary recommendation and should have forwarded the same for the decision of the government. But, in the instant case, the objections had not been considered by the Collector. In view of the above fact, according to the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, the proceedings with regard to Section 5-A of the Act are vitiated. 8. In the afore-stated circumstances, we have called upon the learned Government Pleader to show necessary record to know whether any order was passed by the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. 9. The learned Government Pleader had to very frankly concede that the objections raised by the appellants before respondent No.2 i.e. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) had not been considered by the Collector and no order of whatsoever type, as required under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, was passed by the Collector. 10. In view of the afore-stated admitted fact, in our opinion, the proceedings are vitiated. 11. In the afore-stated circumstances, it is directed that the objections which have been filed by the appellants under Section 5-A shall be forwarded to the Collector, as provided under the Act, and appropriate action shall be taken by the Collector from that stage. 12. Looking to the above facts, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 being Procgs.No.C/191/2005 dated __.12.2005 and the proceedings, if any passed in furtherance thereof, are quashed and set aside. The concerned authority shall forward the objections with its remark thereon to the Collector so that needful can be done in accordance with law under the provisions of the Act. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ December , 2008 P.V. SANJAR KUMAR, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KSRANI}