IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17656 of 2006 Between: Chinthanippu Narasaiah and three others. … Petitioners AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary (Revenue) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17656 of 2006 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside notification dated 17-4-06 issued under Section 4(1) and Declaration dated 10-8-2006 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). By the impugned notification certain lands of the petitioners are proposed to be acquired. As enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.8452 of 2006 and this Court by order dated 26- 4-2006 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the respondents to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act by affording an opportunity to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam (respondent No.3 herein) issued notice dated 9-5-2006. The petitioners specifically averred in their affidavit that on 21-5-2006 they received the said notices and they filed their objections on 2-6-2006. The petitioners further contended that on 12-6-2006, they, along with their counsel, went to the office of respondent No.3 and were present there from 11 AM to 6-30 PM, but respondent No.3 was not available in his office due to MPTC Elections. On the above premise, the petitioners alleged that they were denied the valuable opportunity of being heard as envisaged under Section 5A (2) of the Act. On behalf of the respondents, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Wyra Mandal (respondent No.4 herein) filed a counter- affidavit, wherein he asserted that on 12-6-2006 respondent No.3 was very much present in his office and the petitioners appeared before him along with their counsel, but they have not filed any material in addition to the objections sent by them. He, therefore, denied the allegation that no valuable opportunity was given to the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Though categorical assertion has been made in their affidavit by the petitioners that they waited in the office of respondent No.3 from 11 AM to 6-30 PM and that due to his pre-occupation in MPTC Elections he was not available, respondent No.3 has not chosen to file any counter-affidavit denying the said averment. When specific allegations were made against respondent No.3, he is expected to deny the same by filing his personal affidavit. No reason has been mentioned by respondent No.4 for failure of respondent No.3 to file a counter-affidavit. The learned Assistant Government Pleader candidly conceded that the record does not contain the evidence of respondent No.3 holding enquiry in the presence of the petitioners on 12-6-2006. In the face of these facts, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no reasonable opportunity was given to them by respondent No.3. It is legally well settled that Section 5-A of the Act affords a valuable opportunity to the owners of the land to put-forward their objections and the said provision is termed as heart of the Act by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments and one of the recent judgments being Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. V. Darius Shapur Chenai(1) . The said provision was interpreted as casting an obligation on the Land Acquisition Officer to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the owners of the lands who raise objections to the proposed acquisition. I am, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and direct respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A afresh and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ----------------------------- ------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 22-1-2008 MNR (1) AIR 2005 SC 3520