IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26580 of 2008 Between: 1 Khaled Bin Ibrahim Masqati S/o. Ibrahim Bin Abdulla Masquathi R/o.22-4-505, Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad. 2 Adil Bin Ibrahim Masqati S/o. Ibrahim Bin Abdulla Masquathi R/o.22-4-505, Alijah Kotla, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District. 3 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. 4 Spl. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition), GHMC, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ, order or direction one more particularly in the nature of a "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the orders of 2nd respondent made in proceedings No.A/1190/2007 dated 20.11.2008 thereby rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner u/s. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the petitioner's property in premises No.22-5- 919 to 925 admeasuring 271.27 Sq.Mts or 348.44 Sq. yards, situated at Sher-E-Hyderabad Village, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad District without granting an opportunity of being heard as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the land acquisition proceedings and direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's property in any manner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 26580 of 2008 Order: Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-GHMC, and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at this stage. Several grounds are raised in challenge to the acquisition of the petitioners’ building for the purpose of establishment of “Night Bazar” as part of the Charminar Pedestrian Project. It is, however, wholly unnecessary to examine all the said contentions, as the writ petition is required to be allowed on the short ground that the petitioners were not heard personally, pursuant to the Section 5-A notice issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that while the petitioners had submitted detailed objections, the order passed under Section 5-A of the Act reflects non-application of mind besides the fact that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of personal hearing. Both the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-GHMC, on instructions, would submit that Section 6 declaration issued could be set aside and the respondents be permitted to issue a notice under Section 5-A of the Act to the petitioners, give them an opportunity of being personally heard, thereafter consider their objections and pass an order under Section 5-A of the Act afresh. In view of the submission made by both the counsel, Section 6 declaration is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents to issue a notice under Section 5-A(1) of the Act to the petitioners herein afresh, give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, consider their written objections and the submissions to be made by them during the course of personal hearing and, thereafter pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, under Section 5-A of the Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 18.12.2008 Nsr