G. MEHROTRA, J.: This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a direction that the proceedings under S. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act be quashed and that the notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act be also quashed. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner company is the proprietor of the Nahorkutia Tea Estate in the district of Lakhimpur. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act have been taken in respect of a part of the land belonging to the company. The notification under S- 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the State Govern­ment declaring that the land was needed for pub­lic purpose for the construction of the P.W.D. office and quarters. Thereafter objections were invited and under S. 5-A of the Act objections were filed by the petitioner challenging the ac­quisition of the land. It appears that the petitioner at first did not appear before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner straightway ordered the draft notification under S. 6 to be prepared. The matter was then referred to' the Government and the Government directed the Deputy Commis­sioner to hold an enquiry before the notification under S. 6 could be issued. When the matter came before the Deputy Commissioner on the 20th April, 1955, an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner which rung as follows: "Read letter No. RA. 223/54/19 of 23-3-1955 , forwarding the objection petition of the Manager, I Naharkatia T. E. against acquisition of the land. Shri P. C. Das, E.A.C. will please fix a date to l hear objection and report in due course for my perusal. Send a copy of the Government letter with a copy of the objection petition to Executive Engineer, D/E. Division for his information and to attend on the date fixed, if necessary." Thereafter Shri P. C. Das, E.A.C. who was deput­ed to make an inquiry fixed several dates for exa­mining witnesses and objections were heard and the report was submitted by him to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after perusal of the report sent by him asked the plea­der of the petitioner to appear before him on 2nd July, 1955. On that date he heard the pleader for the petitioner and also asked the Executive Engineer D/Western Division to see him on 4-7-1955. The Deputy Commissioner after perusal of the report sent by him asked the plea­der of the petitioner to appear before him on 2nd July, 1955. On that date he heard the pleader for the petitioner and also asked the Executive Engineer D/Western Division to see him on 4-7-1955. On 6th July again he heard the pleader for the petitioner and the Executive Engineer and thereafter the report was sent by him to the State Government for necessary action. We are informed that the notification under S. 6 of the Act was issued by the State Govern­ment subsequently. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was non-compliance with the provisions of S. 5-A o| the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the entire proceedings held by the Deputy Commissioner were illegal and no right therefore accrued to the State Government to issue a notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 5-A, sub-s. (2) provides as follows : "(2) Every objection under sub-s. (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Col­lector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit the case for the decision of the Provincial Government together with the record of the proceedings held by him and a report con­taining his recommendations on the objections. The decision of the Provincial Government on the objections shall be final." (2) The only duty cast under this sub­section on the Deputy Commissioner is to hear the objections and after making any further in­quiry as he thinks necessary to submit his report for decision to the State Government. In this case from the order sheet it is clear that the ob­jections were heard and opportunity was given to the petitioner's counsel to submit his argu­ments before the Deputy Commissioner. He only asked the officer concerned to make an inquiry and the officer gave an opportunity to the peti­tioner to produce his evidence before him. Sec­tion 5-A (2) enjoins upon the Deputy Commis­sioner to hear the objections and make such in­quiry as he thinks necessary. He only asked the officer concerned to make an inquiry and the officer gave an opportunity to the peti­tioner to produce his evidence before him. Sec­tion 5-A (2) enjoins upon the Deputy Commis­sioner to hear the objections and make such in­quiry as he thinks necessary. He heard the plea­der for the parties and inquiry was made by Shri P. C. Das whose report the Deputy Commissioner ; concerned examined, there was thus compliance with the provisions of S. 5-A (2). In this view of the matter the proceedings cannot be held to be illegal and the petitioner in our opinion is not en­titled to any relief under Art. 226 of the Consti­tution. The rule is discharged. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 85/-. (3) H. DEKA J. : I agree. Rule discharged.