THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1445 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners were gifted an extent of Ac.0.57 cents and Acs.0.55 cents of land respectively in Survey Nos.166/5 and 166/6 of Tummapudi Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District, through gift deed, dated 29.08.2006. Shortly thereafter, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published by the District Collector, Guntur, respondent No.1 herein, on 11.09.2006, proposing to acquire the said land for the purpose of providing house sites to the poor. The names of the petitioners were not shown. On behalf of the petitioners, their Advocate got issued notice, dated 25.09.2006, raising objection for the acquisition. However, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 26.12.2006 without mentioning the names of the petitioners. This writ petition is filed assailing the said proceedings. The petitioners contend that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not held and that though they are the true owners of the land, they are not given an opportunity at any point of time. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, respondent No.2 herein. It is stated that the names of the owners of the land were mentioned in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as per the revenue records. The allegation that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked, is denied. On the other hand, it is stated that the notice, dated 11.10.2006, was issued under Section 5-A of the Act inviting objections and after certain objections were received from some individuals, the matter was referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Duggirala Mandal, respondent No.3 herein. Taking into account the report submitted by respondent No.3, the objections are said to have been rejected. So far as the notice issued on behalf of the petitioners is concerned, it is admitted that the same was received after the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Heard Smt.M.Shobha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The transfer of the land in question in favour of the petitioners took place on 29.08.2006 and the notification for acquisition thereof was issued hardly within 10 days. Therefore, it is difficult to expect the respondents to mention the names of the petitioners in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. At any rate, the mere failure to mention the name of the true owner does not vitiate the proceedings. The petitioners are under the impression that urgency clause was invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. A perusal of the counter-affidavit, however, discloses that an enquiry under that provision was held by respondent No.2. Section 5-A of the Act enables the interested persons to raise their objections. Though there was justification for the respondents in not mentioning the names of the petitioners in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, they ought to have heard the petitioners and issued notices under Section 5-A of the Act. The reason is that even according to the counter-affidavit, the legal notice, dated, 25.09.2006, got issued on behalf of the petitioners, was received and the notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued nearly one and a half month thereafter. Respondent No.2 did not choose to issue notice to the petitioners, though he received legal notice on their behalf. Another aspect of the matter is that the notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued by respondent No.2, whereas the enquiry as such by visiting the site etc., was conducted by respondent No.3. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act gives the objector an opportunity of being heard and that the Collector shall submit a report after making such enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary. Basically, respondent No.2 does not answer the description of Collector and even assuming that he is competent to issue notice, he alone was under obligation to inspect the site and submit a report to the Collector. On both the counts, he failed. He got the site inspected by respondent No.3 and without submitting a report to the District Collector, respondent No.2 himself passed an order, rejecting the objections. Therefore, the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act, in the instant case, is vitiated on account of lapses. The consequential declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act also suffers from the same legal infirmity. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act and the consequential declaration published on 26.12.2006, are set aside. It is directed that a fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act shall be held, after issuing notice of hearing to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.04.2010. kdl