IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1224 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order, dated 06-10-2009 in Writ Petition No.8014 of 2008 on the file of this Court). Between: K.Nooruddin and six others. … Appellants. And: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Secretary, Land Acquisition (Industries) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Avinash Desai for Sri S.Niranjan Reddy. Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Land Acquisition for R.1, R.3 and R.4. Sri P. Roy Reddy for R.2. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1224 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.,) This Writ Appeal arises out of common order, dated 06-10-2009, in Writ Petition No.8014 of 2008 and batch, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed Writ Petition No.8014 of 2008 filed by the appellants. The appellants are the owners of Ac.9.04 guntas of land situated in Survey Nos.294-2A/A, 295/A and 295-3/A of Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District, which was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) for setting up of LPG Bottling Unit by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Along with the lands of the appellants, the lands belonging to other persons were also notified for acquisition. In pursuance of the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the appellants have attended the enquiry on 24-11-2007 and stated that they are not willing to part with their lands. It is an admitted fact that, at their request, enquiry was adjourned to enable the appellants to submit their written objections and that written objections were sent by the appellants through registered post, which were received by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who also happens to be the Land Acquisition Officer, on 27-11-2007. Thereupon, the Land Acquisition Officer sent his report, dated 4-12-2007. Purportedly considering the said report, the District Collector, Anantapur, vide: his order dated 27-12-2007, rejected the objections submitted by the appellants. It has been stated by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that, subsequently, on the same day, Section 6 declaration was approved and it was accordingly published in accordance with the provisions Act; and that Award was passed on 25-5-2009. The appellants filed Writ Petition No.8014 of 2008 questioning the said acquisition proceedings. The learned single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition along with the other Writ Petitions. The appellants, therefore, filed the present Writ Appeal. During the hearing on earlier occasion, we have summoned the original record from the respondents. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition accordingly produced the record. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the objections raised by the appellants were not considered by the District Collector, we have carefully perused the record. We find from the record that the Land Acquisition Officer in his report dated 4-12-2007, sent to the District Collector, inter alia, stated that the appellants have attended the enquiry on 24-11-2007 and represented that they are not willing to part with their lands; and that they requested for four days’ time to file their objections. It is further stated therein that the objections sent by the appellants were received on 27- 11-2007 apart from the registered letter sent through their Advocate on 29-11-2007. The report is completely silent on the contents of the objections contained in the above-mentioned two letters. We have also perused order dated 27-12-2007, by which the District Collector rejected the objections of the appellants. In the said order, the District Collector made a reference to the report of the Land Acquisition Officer and also the fact that the appellants have sent their representation, dated 27-11-2007, to the Land Acquisition Officer. Even the District Collector in his order failed to advert to the contents of the objections submitted by the appellants. In the objections referred to above, the appellants have categorically stated that their lands yield three crops and that they are solely dependant upon the income derived from the said lands. They have further stated that for establishing a Bottling Plant, wet lands need not be acquired. In our considered view, the District Collector failed to consider the objections in accordance with the scheme of the Act. The valuable rights of the appellants over the immovable property are sought to be taken away by exercising the power of eminent domain by the State. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the District Collector to refer to and consider the objections raised by the landowners in an objective manner. As held by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. Darius Shapur, Chenai and Others1), Section 5-A of the Act confers valuable right on the owners of the lands to raise objections to the proposed acquisition. Therefore, such a right of the land owners cannot be taken away in a light hearted manner by the authorities by not considering the objections raised by the landowners. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that order dated 27-12-2007 passed by the District Collector, Anantapur, rejecting the objections of the appellants cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, we declare that all proceedings, which were taken consequent on order dated 27-12-2007, as invalid. The respondents are given liberty to conduct fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act insofar as the lands belonging to the appellants are concerned. Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ., C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.09-11-2009 Note: Issue CC in four days. (BO) MNR 1) (2005) 7 SCC 627