VENKATASWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a owner of a land bearing Survey No. 10 in Bilidale village, Kanakapura Taluka. He has questioned the validity of two notifications issued by the Government under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acauisition Act (referred to as the Act ). Copies of these Notifications have been produced along with the petition and marked as Exts. C and H. Exhibit C is the Notification issued under S. 4 bearing No. RD 11 AQB 67 dated21-2-1967 published in the Mvsore Gazette on 6th of July 1967. Exhibit H is the Notification under S. 6. issued pursuant to the Notification Exhibit-C, bearing No. RD 589 AQB 69. dated 7th February 1970, and the date of publication in the Mysore Gazette is not indicated in the said Exhibit. ( 2 ) SHRI T. R. Subbanna. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged the following contentions: (i) That the Government, having withdrawn from acquisition as can be seen from Ext. F, which is a letter addressed by the Secretary to the Government of Mvsore, Revenue Department, to the Deputy Commissioner. Bangalore District and dated 21-3-1969. should have issued a fresh notification under S. 4. of the Land Acquisition Act, instead of following up the earlier Notification Exhibit C by the issue of a Notification under r. 6 of the Act. Hence the present proceedings are invalid and both the notifications are liable to be quashed; (ii)That the fact of having sent up a report to the Government under S. 5a (2) of the Act, not having been intimated to the petitioner, the notification under S. 6, stands vitiated; and (iii) That the Government, not having afforded the petitioner an opportunity of a personal hearing in support of his petition under S. 15a of the Acquisition Act, the Notification under S. 6 would be invalid. ( 3 ) WE are unable to accept anv of the above contentions. In regard to the first contention of the learned counsel, reliance is placed on Ext. ( 3 ) WE are unable to accept anv of the above contentions. In regard to the first contention of the learned counsel, reliance is placed on Ext. 'f', which is a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner by the Secretary to the Government It is no doubt true that the said communication refers to the dropping of the acquisition proceedings accompanied with a request to the Deputy Commissioner to take such steps as may be necessary for the cancellation "of the present Notification issued under S. 4 of the land Acquisition Act. In our opinion, this communication 'ex facie' does not indicate that such dropping of proceedings was ordered at the instance of the petitioner, nor is it a communication addressed to the petitioner putting him on notice of such dropping of proceedings. It is a part of the correspondence between the two officers of the Government and no reliance can be placed by the petitioner on the contents thereof. On this part of the submission, Shri Subbanna, the learned counsel, also relied on a judgment of this Court in WP. 2167 of 1964 pronounced on 7-2-1967. It is no doubt laid down therein that S. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act did not expressly enjoin the issuance of a Notification for a cancellation of the Notification issued under S. 4 of the Act. But this decision will not be of any assistance to the petitioner, in view of the fact that subsequent to the proceedings concerned in the said writ petition, rules have been framed under the Land Acquisition Act, in" the year 1965. Rule 8 (b) of the said rules lays down that "when the Government decides that all or any' land possession whereof has not) been taken should not be acquired, a notification cancelling the notification issued under S. 4, shall be published by the Government. " It is, therefore, clear from the above statutory prescription that any cancellation of Notification for acquisition can onlv be done by a fresh Notification issued under s. 48 of the Act read with Rule 8 (b) of the Rules. There is no such Notification in the instant case. This view is also supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in Khan Bhahadur Chowkaram Kelath Mammad Koyi v. Province of Madras, AIR 1946 Mad 450. There is no such Notification in the instant case. This view is also supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in Khan Bhahadur Chowkaram Kelath Mammad Koyi v. Province of Madras, AIR 1946 Mad 450. ( 4 ) THE second ground relates to the Land Acquisition Officer's non intimation of the fact of having sent up a report to the Government, to the petitioner, as enjoined under S. 5a (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is seen from the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner that what he complains of is the non-communication of the recommendation of the Land acquisition Officer, made to the Government, to the petitioner. This does not, however, mean that the petitioner's grievance was one concerning the non-intimation of the fact of having sent up such a report to the Government. But, it is the contention of Shri Subbanna, that it should be understood in the sense prescribed for in S. 5a (2) pf the Act. Assuming that his contention in this behalf is correct, even then, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot succeed. It is seen from the record, that the objections filed by the petitioner in response to the Notification under S. 4 of the Act, were clearly out of time, and this fact is not disputed. It is no doubt true that the Land Acquisition Officer has considered those objections notwithstanding their belatedness. The fact of his having considered such objections does not give rise to any right in the petitioner, clothing him with the character of an objector under the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. An objector, under Section 5-A of the Act is one who has filed his objections within the time prescribed under the notification under S. 4 of the Act. The prescription regarding intimation of the fact of having sent up a report to the Government is clearly relateable to an obiector of the latter kind. Lastly, a decision of this Court relied on by Shri Subbanna, requires to be noticed. It is the case of kirshnamurthy v. State of Mysore, (1970)1 Mys. L. J. 462. The passage relied on reads thus: "therefore under S. 5 (A) Clause (2) of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to be informed of the fact of the report, containing the recommendations, having been submitted to the Government. . . . . . It is the case of kirshnamurthy v. State of Mysore, (1970)1 Mys. L. J. 462. The passage relied on reads thus: "therefore under S. 5 (A) Clause (2) of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to be informed of the fact of the report, containing the recommendations, having been submitted to the Government. . . . . . " reliance was particularly placed on the words 'containing the recommendations' in the above said passage, for the contention that it was the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to have furnished a copy of the recommendations made to the Government by him, even though not applied for. On a fair reading of the above passage, it appears to us that by the aforesaid words the Court was merely explaining the contents of any report to be made by the Land Acquisition Officer under S. 5a (2) under the Act. But it does not mean that what is to be communicated thereunder is the recommendation itself. What S. 5a (2) enjoins is the communication to the objector only the fact of having made the report to the government. ( 5 ) THE last contention relates to denial of an opportunity of personal hearing before the Government. It is not clear from the averments in the affidavit, whether such a petition was presented pursuant to the provisions of S. 15a of the Land Acquisition Act. If it is not a petition under S. 15a of the Act, we do not think that the petitioner would be well within his right in demanding a personal hearing. Even assuming that it is a petition under S. 15a of the Act, he would still, in our opinion, not be entitled to any such hearing as of right. S. 15a of the Act clearly relates to the power of the Government to revise any order or proceeding although a person in the position of the petitioner can present a petition pursuant thereto as laid down in certain decisions of this Court. That apart, the section does not expressly enjoin that a petitioner should be heard personally. We are, therefore, not persuaded to agree that there is violation of any principle of natural justice, as contended for by Mr. Subbanna the learned counsel. ( 6 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. --- *** --- .