IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25465 of 2007 Between: Saladi Chandra Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25465 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 15.09.2007 of respondent No.1, whereby he rejected the objections of the petitioner, as illegal. Heard Sri M.Srinivas, representing Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition. Since the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of on a limited ground, there is no need to go into details of the case. Suffice it to state that in response to the notice issued by respondent No.3 under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner filed his objections. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied the opportunity of personal hearing in the enquiry and that therefore, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. In the notice issued by respondent No.3 on 30.09.2006, it is mentioned that the objections filed by the petitioner will be enquired into on 03.11.2006 at 11 a.m. at the office of the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry. However, in the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.1, it is mentioned that the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry held enquiry on 26.10.2006. The record produced by the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader does not contain any material to show as to on which date the enquiry was held. On the face of irreconcilable statements regarding the dates of enquiry, contained in the notice issued by respondent No.3 on 30.09.2006 on one hand and in the order passed by respondent No.1 on the other, this Court has no option other than coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of personal hearing. The declaration dated 04.11.2006 under Sec.6 is, therefore, set aside. The respondents are given liberty to proceed afresh by holding enquiry under Sec.5-A by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before proceeding further. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.33185 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 05.02.2008 Dsr