THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2181 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification dated 09.11.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the extent it relates to Ac.1.10 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.257/2 of Veerampalem Pakalu Village, H/o. Veerampalem, Rangampet Mandal, East Godavari District. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: 1. The impugned acquisition of agricultural land without its conversion for non-agricultural purpose is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, and 2. Respondent No.2 failed to give an opportunity of personal hearing as envisaged under Section 5A of the Act. With regard to the first contention, the same is nowhere res integra in view of judgment dated 28.12.2007 in WP.No.18881 of 2006 and batch, wherein this Court rejected an identical contention. Therefore, following the said judgment this contention of the learned counsel is without any merit. With respect to the second contention, namely, denial of opportunity of personal hearing, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit, wherein it is categorically averred that respondent No.2 did not afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on 16.12.2006 and that the order passed by respondent No.1 on 13.01.2007 was only based on the written objections filed by him on 21.011.2006. Respondent No.2 did not file additional counter affidavit to controvert these allegations mentioned by the petitioner. Even in his counter affidavit respondent No.2 merely stated that the petitioner filed his objections on 16.12.2006 and he enquired into the same before submitting a report to respondent No.1 on 28.12.2006. When this writ petition came up earlier, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition requested for time to produce record. Today at the hearing she submitted that the record produced by her does not show that respondent No.2 made any note on the holding of enquiry and giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing except an endorsement of receiving objections on 16.12.2006. It hardly needs any emphasis that Section 5A of the Act provides a valuable opportunity to the owners of the land, who seek to object to the proposed acquisition. When the respondents choose to hold enquiry under Section 5A, it is their bounded duty to give the land owners proper opportunity of personal hearing and they cannot refuse this statutory obligation to a fars. In the absence of specific reputation of the allegations contained in the additional affidavit and anything from the record to show that neither on 16.12.2006 or on any other subsequent date respondent No.2 gave the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, I have no option other than holding that respondent No.2 failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 5A of the Act by failing to afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before sending his report to respondent No.1. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Declaration dated 22.01.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to hold enquiry afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove. **** As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4697 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.02.2008 ES