IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17122 of 2007 Between: L. Venkata LAkshmi W/o late Satyanarayana R/o Plot No. 141, RTC Colony, 4th Line, Patamata, Vijayawada- 8, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur Revenue Division, Guntur Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Notiﬁcation issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act Published in Guntur Gazette dt 28-3-2007 in Proceedings NO. ROC. 3033/06/G1 proposing to acquire the petitioner's land covered by Sy. No. 90 of Venkatapalem, Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Land acquisition Act and the provisions of A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion of Non-Agricultural Purposes) ACt 2006 and consequently to set a side the section 4(1) Notiﬁcation Published in Guntur Gazette dt 28-03-2007 in respect of the Land Covered by Sy. No. 90 of Venkatapalem Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District and to pass such other and further orders as deemed ﬁt aand proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VIJAYA BHASKAR MOOLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: The District Collector, Guntur, the second respondent herein, issued a notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) on 28.03.2007, proposing to acquire Acs.3.00 of land of the petitioner in survey No.90 of Venkatapalem Village, Thullur Mandal, Guntur District, for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor under a Government Sponsored Scheme. A notice, dated 29.03.2007, under Section 5-A of the Act was served upon the petitioner on 23.04.2007. She issued a telegram on 25.04.2007 with a request to grant twenty days’ time for submission of objections on the ground that she has fallen sick. The petitioner, ultimately, submitted her objections on 21.05.2007. However, the second respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the District Gazette, dated 17.07.2007. The petitioner challenges the same, including the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, on the ground that though she is a small farmer and had raised several objections, the respondents have not taken the same into account. Other contentions are also urged. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, broadly admitting facts mentioned above. It is, however, pleaded that the petitioner did not attend the award enquiry and in the objections ﬁled by her, she pleaded that she is a small farmer, etc. It is stated that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner owns more than Acs.30.00 of land and in that view of the matter, the objections were rejected. It is further stated that an award was also passed on 27.11.2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The second respondent recognized the importance of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and soon after publishing the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, caused the service of notice under Section 5-A of the Act. Since the petitioner alone was the land owner, the notice was directly served upon her. As soon as she received the notice under Section 5-A of the Act, she sent a telegram to the respondents to grant twenty days, time and thereafter, submitted her objections on 21.05.2007. Though it is mentioned in the counter-aﬃdavit that the objections raised by the petitioner were rejected in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, no orders, as such, were passed either by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer or by the District Collector. The record discloses that except making certain entries in the Form, no reasons were mentioned. They proceeded to publish notiﬁcation under Section 6 of the Act on 17.07.2007. Conducting an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is not an empty formality. The Section, by itself, does require the District Collector to pass a detailed order at the end of the enquiry. This Court, through a precedent held that the result of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act must be reﬂected in a detailed reasoned order. Such order is lacking in this case. The inference is that the objections raised by the petitioner were not taken into account at all. It is not a case where the petitioner submitted her explanation or representation after an order was passed under Section 5-A of the Act. Even by the time the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was very much in the hands of respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is vitiated in law. It has to be set aside. Consequently, the award, dated 27.11.2007, also must be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 17.07.2007, and the award, dated 27.11.2007. It shall be open to the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh and to take further steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _​___________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J) Dt:19.09.2008 kdl