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 : 5286 of 2008 Between: Katragadda Pardhasarathi Rao S/o. Chenchuramaiah R/o.Kurumaddali village Pamarru Mandal Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam 2 The Land Acquistion officer and R.D.O., Gudivada, Krishna District 3 The Tahsildar, Pamarru, Krishna District 4 The Govt of AP., rep.by its Prl.Secretary Revenue (land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, 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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent Rc.No.5470/2007 dated 25.1.2008 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner in the 5A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act without affording an opportunity of personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside order of the 1st respondent in Rc.G4/5470/2007 dated 25.1.2008 declaring it as without power and jurisdiction in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY 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 Proceedings dated 25.1.2008 issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner’s objections without affording an opportunity of being heard, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner assets that he is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.1.00 cent of land in S.No.39/11A situated in Kurumaddali village, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District, by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated 26.3.2007. The 1st respondent-District Collector issued a Notification dated 17.11.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire the petitioner’s land for providing house sites to weaker sections. In pursuance of the Notification, the 2nd respondent- Land Acquisition Officer issued a Notice dated 14.12.2007, under Section 5(A) of the Act with regard to the acquisition of land. Then, the petitioner filed his objections before the 2nd respondent, who conducted an enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent, without affording an opportunity of being heard, passed the impugned Proceedings dated 25.1.2008 rejecting his objections. 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 proceedings, 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 25.1.2008 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