IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 477 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/02/2008 in WP NO : 2727 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Syed Zelani S/o.Syed Moosa R/o.Dr.No.82-4-10, Lalacharuvu, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. 2 Syed Babu S/o.Syed Moosa R/o.Dr.No.82-4-10, Lalacharuvu, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer cum R.D.O. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District. 4 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Prl. SEcretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) The order dated 26-2-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 2727 of 2008 has been challenged in this appeal by the original petitioners whose lands are sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that no hearing was given in pursuance of the enquiry initiated under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings are bad in law. After hearing the learned Advocates, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that all the objections, which had been filed, had been duly considered by the respondents-authorities. More over, personal hearing was also given to the appellants-original petitioners. It has been also noted that the persons who were present had also put their signatures to show that they were present. The aforestated facts have been duly considered by the learned Single Judge. What is important is that all objections raised by the appellants had been duly considered by the authorities and a reasoned order had been passed. The learned Single Judge has also reproduced the remarks made by the concerned officer in the impugned order. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the appellants were not heard by the concerned authorities. We do not see any substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 30th July, 2008. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR