IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5212 of 2008 Between: Ravipati Venkata Subbaiah S/o.Ankamma Choudary Resident of Annangi village Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole 2 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition ) Kandula Obul Reddy Gundlakamma Reservoir Project Santhapeta, Ongole , Prakasam District 3 State of AP., rep.by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction as illegal, and arbitrary, the action of the Respondent No.1 in passing the proceedings impugned in Rc.No.D1/485/2007 dated 25.2.2008 rejecting the objections of the petitioner and confirming the 5A enquiry report of the respondent No.2 paving the way for paying a road to the NH 5 from rehabilitation colony of Garlapadu and Gadiyapudi at Gundlapalli through the agricultural fields of the petitioner in total ignorance of the existing northern and southern roads to reach the NH 5 the distance of which are only half kilometer and one kilometer respectively and it is further consequentially prayed that this Hon`ble court may be pleased to set aside the said proceedings impugned by upholding of the objections of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Proceedings dated 25.2.2008 rejecting the petitioner’s objections and confirming the 2nd respondent’s report of enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner assets that he possesses an extent of Ac.2.00 cents of agricultural land in S.No.72/2 situated in Gundlapalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. Some people of Gadiyapudi and Garlapadu of Maddipadu Mandal needed rehabilitation on account of their displacement due to the construction of Kandula Obul Reddy Gundlakamma Reservoir Project. Therefore, the respondents started rehabilitating them at a center situated in Gundlapalli village, Maddipadu Mandal on the eastern side of the Madras, Bombay National High Way. The petitioner’s piece of land is adjacent to the National High Way. The persons, who are being rehabilitated by way of construction of houses on the eastern side of the High Way have three different roads to reach the National High Way. But, the people, who are encouraged by the contractors, want another road to reach N.H.5 through the petitioner’s agricultural lands. The petitioner already lost Ac.40.00 cents of land in various land acquisitions. Therefore, the petitioner filed his objections before the 1st respondent. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent, without considering his objections, passed the impugned order dated 25.2.2008 confirming the 2nd respondent’s report of enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Section 5(A) of the Act deals with hearing of objections. Sub- Section 2 of Section 5(A) mandates that every objection under Sub- section(1) shall be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard (in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf). From this provision of law, it is clear that affording an opportunity of being heard is mandatory. From the impugned order, it is obvious that there is compliance of Sub-section(1) of Section 5(A), but the District Collector failed to hear the petitioner personally though personal hearing of the objector is mandatory. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the proceedings dated 25.2.2008 are liable to be set aside, and the same are accordingly set aside. The 1st respondent is hereby directed to fix a particular date for hearing the petitioner’s objections and issue a notice well in advance to him so that he will appear before him in person, and thereafter, the 1st respondent shall hear his objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ 12.03.2008 bcj