IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 498 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/02/2008 in WP NO : 3 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Pepakayala Tirupavathi, W/o. Mallabbai, R/o. Peda Doddigunta Village, Rangampeta Mandal, E.G. District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavary District at Kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer cum R.D.O., Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Rangampeta, E.G. District. 4 The Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 498 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order, dated 26th February 2008, passed in writ petition No.3 of 2008, this writ appeal has been filed. The matter pertains to acquisition of land. The grievance which was ventilated by the appellant/petitioner before the learned single Judge was that the appellant/petitioner was not given the opportunity of personal hearing as per Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). After hearing the learned advocates and upon perusal of the counter filed by the Government authorities, the petition has been rejected by an order dated 26th February 2008 and being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned advocates and have gone through the papers pertaining to the case. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of notice given to the appellant/petitioner, the appellant/petitioner had remained present in the office of 2nd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer and had filed her objections also. The objections filed by the appellant/petitioner had been dealt with in an order dated 16th December 2007. Each and every objection has been duly considered and rejected. An affidavit has been filed to the effect that personal hearing was given as provided under Section 5-A of the Act. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not see any reason to believe that the opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the appellant/petitioner, especially when receipt of notice, presence of appellant/petitioner in the office of 2nd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer, filing of the objections and consideration of the objections are not in dispute. We do not see any reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 15th July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To 1 The District Collector, East Godavary District at Kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer cum R.D.O., Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Rangampeta, E.G. District. 4 The Prl. Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.