* The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy + Writ Petition No.30620 of 2011 % Date: 01-12-2011 Between: # R.Sattaiah and 2 others ..... Petitioners AND $ The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Revenue Dept & Land Acquisition, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents ^ Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Mohinuddin ! Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: ----- < Gist: > Head note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2005) 7 SCC 627 2. (2011) 5 SCC 553 3. 1994 (2) ALT 51 4. AIR 1975 SC 2190 5. 1971 (1) MLJ 342 The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.30620 of 2011 Date: 01-12-2011 Between: R.Sattaiah and 2 others ..... Petitioners AND The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Revenue Dept & Land Acquisition, A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Mohinuddin Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: ----- The Court made the following : Order: The question raised by the petitioners in this Writ Petition is, whether the procedure followed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 while disposing of the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) conforms to the requirements of law. The petitioners are owners of properties bearing Nos.6-3-803/12/3, 6-3-803/1/12/1/A and 6-3-803/1/12/2 situated at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The said properties were notified for acquisition for the purpose of widening of the road for metro rail corridor from Greenland junction to Ameerpet junction. In response to form-III notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections on 11-07-2011. The petitioners specifically averred in their affidavit that when they filed the objections before respondent No.3 on 11-07-2011, they were informed by the said respondent that the date of personal hearing will be intimated to them after receiving remarks from the requisitioning Department. The grievance of the petitioners is that neither they were given notices of personal hearing nor the order passed on their objections was communicated to them and without giving any opportunity, as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act, respondent No.2 has rejected their objections following which a declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made. The petitioners have, therefore, assailed these proceedings. A counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.3 wherein it is inter alia stated that form-III notice itself has fixed ‘15-07- 2011’ as the date on which enquiry was to be conducted and that the petitioners have submitted their objections on 11-07-2011, but have not availed the opportunity of personal hearing on 15-07-2011. It is further stated that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved by respondent No.2 on 24-09-2011 and the substance of draft declaration was published in all the modes as prescribed under the Act. At the hearing, Sri Md.Mohinuddin, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, advanced three contentions viz., (1) that the petitioners were denied opportunity of personal hearing; (2) that the respondents have violated the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 (b) of the Rules framed by the State Government pursuant to the powers reserved under Section 55 of the Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules’) and; (3) that the respondents have failed to communicate the order passed on the objections to the petitioners to enable them to question the same. With regard to the plea of denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the petitioners specifically stated that, on 11-07- 2011, when they submitted their objections, they were informed by respondent No.3 that a date for personal hearing will be intimated to them after receiving remarks from the requisitioning department. In the counter-affidavit, respondent No.3 has not even adverted this specific averment let alone not denying the same. Even though form-III notice has fixed ‘15-07-2011’ as the date of personal hearing, as the petitioners’ plea referred to above has not been controverted by the respondents, it is reasonable to presume that the respondents wanted to fix a fresh date of hearing after receiving remarks from the requisitioning Department. As held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that a valuable right is conferred on the land owners by way of affording an opportunity of personal hearing to substantiate the objections filed by them and such a right cannot be taken away by the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain. (see Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai[1] and Radhy Shyam vs. State of U.P. and others[2]). In the light of the facts noted above, it requires to be held that the petitioners were denied the opportunity of personal hearing before rejecting their objections by respondent No.2. Coming to the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner viz., that Rule 3 (b) of the Rules is violated by the respondents, it is necessary to reproduce the said Rule. “Rule 3 (b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land, where such department is not the Revenue Department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The Department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections any, may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry.” In Syed Hussain and others vs. The Joint Secretary, PWD (R&B), Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others[3], a Division Bench of this Court held that this Rule is mandatory and failure to follow the procedure prescribed therein vitiates the order rejecting objections. The Division Bench has summed up the legal position as under: “If objections are received from a person interested in the land within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of the Act, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as the Department or Company requiring the land, where such Department is not the Revenue Department. Here the requiring Department is the third respondent and the purpose of, acquisition is to establish a Telephone Exchange. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to the requiring Department. The requiring Department may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector, a Statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry. Clause (c) of the Rule 3 of the Rules contemplates follow-up action when it says that on the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector or his Pleader and the representative of the requiring Department and record any evidence that may be produced in support of the objections. Only after the processes as contemplated by the above provisions viz., Section 5-A of the Act read with Rule 3 land in particular clause (b) thereof, of the Rules are complied with, further steps towards acquisition could be prosecuted.” The Division Bench, in fortification of its view, has followed the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Mysore & others vs. V.K.Kangan and others[4], which dealt with a pari materia rule contained in Madras Land Acquisition Rules and held that this Rule is mandatory. A learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Sinnaiyan and others vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry[5], analysed the object behind the Rule and held that the said Rule is envisaged to enable the objector to put forth his objections during personal hearing with reference to the remarks of the requisitioning Department and that if the requisitioning Department has nothing to say in answer to the objections, the objector might urge before the acquisition officer that the objections should be accepted as they were not controverted, though it would be open to the acquisition officer, on an appreciation of all the facts, either to accept or reject the objections. In the present case, it is not in dispute that after receipt of objections from the petitioners on 11-07-2011, they were not forwarded to the requisitioning department i.e., the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the GHMC’) and no remarks were called for from them. I find from the order, dated -09-2011, passed by respondent No.2 disposing of the objections reference to the letter, dated 25-10-2010, of the Assistant City Planner, Circle X of GHMC. From this, the learned Government Pleader contended that the requirement of Rule 3 (a) of the Rules is complied with. I am afraid I cannot accept this submission. The purported remarks of the Assistant City Planner were much prior to the date, on which the objections were submitted by the petitioners and obviously, those remarks were not with reference to the objections of the petitioners. The obvious reason for contemplating invitation of remarks from the requisitioning Department is that the Land Acquisition Officer will have the benefit of knowing the stand of the requisitioning Department with reference to the objections of the land owner. This being the object behind the Rule, no purpose will be served in the Land Acquisition Officer getting the remarks of the requisitioning Department even before the objections are filed by the land owner. I, therefore, find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 3 (b) of the Rules. As regards the contention relating to non- communication of the order passed on the objections of the petitioners to them, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, submitted that there is no specific provision for such communication. In my opinion, even in the absence of such procedure, the respondents need to communicate the order passed on the objections to enable the landowners to know the result of the objections filed by them and to challenge the rejection order, if they so desire. For all the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned order, dated -09-2011, of respondent No.2 and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act are quashed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall issue a fresh notice of hearing to the petitioners after obtaining remarks from the requisitioning department and pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.37961 of 2011, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 1st December, 2011 Note: LR copy (B/o) LUR [1] (2005) 7 SCC 627 [2] (2011) 5 SCC 553 [3] 1994 (2) ALT 51 [4] AIR 1975 SC 2190 [5] 1971 (1) MLJ 342