THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.Nos.6056 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the action of the respondents in not putting him on notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. In paragraph-5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner asserts that no enquiry was conducted under Section 5-A of the Act which was mandatory. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that, since the petitioner’s name is not reflected in the revenue records, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should be put on notice. Since the petitioner asserted that the said property was purchased by him by way of registered sale deed in the year 2002, and as the Section 4(1) notification was issued on 16.6.2007, the records were directed to be produced. On a perusal of the Section 4(1) Notification it is evident that, except for particulars of the property in question not even the name of the owner of the building is reflected therein. Under Section 5A(1), any person interested in any land, which has been notified under Section 4(1) as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose, may, within thirty days from the date of causing public notice, submit his objections thereto. It is only if the owner of the land is aware that his land is being acquired can he raise objections thereto under Section 5A(1) of the Act. It is, therefore, necessary that the notification under Section 4(1) contains details of the land or the building proposed to be acquired and the name of the owner of the land/building, so that the remedy under Section 5A(1) can be availed by the owner thereof. In the case on hand, the section 4(1) notification, admittedly, makes a reference only to the house number of the building and does not disclose the name of the owner of the building. The respondents have not even taken the minimum care required to ascertain as to who the owner of the property was, and to include his name in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Both the Learned G.P. for Land Acquisition and Sri M.Dhananjaya Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the HUDA would assert that, since the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court only after an award is passed, he is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. I am afraid I cannot agree. As noted hereinabove, the Section 4(1) notification does not even reflect the name of the petitioner or for that matter the name of any person as the owner of the building. Merely the door number of the building is shown therein. The casual manner in which the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated clearly violates the constitutional rights conferred on a citizen under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. As, however, the Section 4(1) notification is not under challenge in this writ petition, nor are any averments to be found in the affidavit making a challenge thereto, I see no reason to set aside the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. As all proceedings, commencing from the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act and thereafter, have been held without the petitioner being put on notice, as is statutorily mandated, and without giving him an opportunity of being heard personally, all consequential proceedings thereafter must be held to be illegal. In such circumstances the mere fact that an award is passed would not justify the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the property in question, as the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act has not been adhered to. It is evident that the respondents have not put the petitioner on notice under Section 5-A of the Act, nor was he given an opportunity of being heard. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside all proceedings subsequent to the Section 4(1) Notification, including the Form-10 notice issued to the petitioner. Respondents shall put the petitioner on notice under Section 5-A of the Act, give him an opportunity of submitting his objections, give him a personal hearing and thereafter take action in accordance with law. Since the public purpose sought to be achieved, as per the Section 4(1) notification, is widening of the road and, as it is stated across the bar by both the Learned G.P. for Land Acquisition and Sri M.Dhananjaya Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for HUDA, that, except the petitioner’s building, all other buildings have already been acquired under the Act and that it is only because of this writ petition that the entire process of road widening has come to a stand-still, I consider it appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall file his objections to the acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act within two weeks. Thereafter, the respondents shall conduct the Section 5-A enquiry giving the petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing, take a decision under Section 5-A of the Act and proceed thereafter in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 16-12-2008 asp