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 : 5211 of 2008 Between: Dantuluri Subhadra W/o.Late D.V S.Sitrarama Raju Hindu R/o.D.No.65-1-17A Narasasannanagar Kakinada ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector E.G. Dist. at Kakinada 2 Land Acquisition Officer Cum-Revenue Divisional Officer Peddapuram E.G Dist .....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 writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the proposed action of the respondents in issuing the notification u/Sec.4(1) of the land Acquisition Act in Ref.No.G2/8264/07 dt.25-11-2007 published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily on 28-11-2007 and in issuing Notice u/sec.5A of the act in Ref.No.E.1920/2007 dt.15-12- 2007 and proceedings in ref No.G2/8264/2007 dt.19-2-2008 for acquiring Ac.5.12 cents under Survey No.170/2 situated at Ratchapalli(V) Pathipadu(M) East Godavari Dist belonging to the petitioner as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant the Ref.No.G2/8264/2007 dt.25-11-2007 in respect of Survey No.170/2 of land admeasuring Ac.5.12 cents situated at Rachapalli(V) Prathipadu(M) E.G Dist in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing Notification dated 25.11.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), Notice dated 15.12.2007 under Section 5(A) of the Act and also the Proceedings dated 19.2.2008 for acquiring Ac.5.12 cents of the petitioner’s land in S.No.170/2 situated in Rachapalli village, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner assets that the 1st respondent-District Collector issued Notification dated 25.11.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire her land of an extent of Ac.5.12 cents in S.No.170/2 situated in Rachapalli village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District, for providing house sites to weaker sections under Indiramma Housing Programme Phase-II. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer issued a Notice dated 15.12.2007 under Section 5(A) of the Act to the petitioner asking her to submit objections if any. In pursuance of the notice, the petitioner filed objections stating that her land is under mortgage with the private moneylenders. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent, without considering her objections nor giving any notice for personal hearing of her grievance, issued the Proceedings dated 19.2.2008. 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. When the Proceedings dated 19.2.2008 are looked at, it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector has not afforded any opportunity. In Paragraph No.4 of the proceedings, it is stated as follows: “The Land Acquisition officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram further reported that with reference to Form-3 Notice, the following individuals appear before the R.D.O., Peddapuram personally on 3.1.2008 and gave their objection petitions and written statements and the objections raised by the petitioners were got enquired by him and submitted his remarks as detailed below” From the above, it is obvious that there is compliance of Sub-section(1) of Section 5(A), but the Land Acquisition Officer 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 19.2.2008 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 her so that she will appear before him in person, and thereafter, the 1st respondent may pass appropriate orders on her objections. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ 12.03.2008 bcj