Prakash Naraiin, J. ( 1 ) THE Delhi Administration on 13th November, 1959 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 notifying for likely acquisition land measuring 34070 acres. The said notification further set out that, inter alia, "land under grave yards, tombs, shrines and the land attached to religious institutions and wakf property" was exempted from the purview of the said notification. Shree Sita Ram Bhandar, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, preferred objections under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of 324 bighas of land in Village Karkar Duma (Shahdara), Delhi. According to the objections of this society the land in respect of which it filed objections belonged to Mandir Sita Ramji, Pilani in Rajasthan and was outside the purview of the acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector submitted his report to the Delhi Administration in respect of the notified land whereafter on 7th November, 1968 the Delhi Administration issued a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act purporting to auire the land in. respect of which Shree Sita Ram Bhandar had filed objections. A writ petition was thereafter filed by Mandir Sita Ramji (Civil Writ No. 330 of 1970) challenging the said acquisition on various grounds including the contention that the Section 6 notification has been issued and the declaration has been made without affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard under Section 5a of the said Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 28th September, 1971 allowed the writ petition and held that "both the requirements of a hearing, by which is meant a full and adequate hearing, as well as a recommendation by the Collector, which is mandatory under Section 5a of the Act, not having been complied with the declaration under Section 6 made in this case (without complying with both these requirements) cannot obviously be upheld. " Aggrieved by this judgment the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi and others. ( 2 ) DURING the course of the hearing before us, it was contended that Shree Sita Ram Bhandar is a trust/society which manages, supports etc. temples and other institutions of religious and charitable nature belonging to Mandir Sita Ramji at Pilani or started, dedicated or founded by the Biria Family. Governor of Delhi and others. ( 2 ) DURING the course of the hearing before us, it was contended that Shree Sita Ram Bhandar is a trust/society which manages, supports etc. temples and other institutions of religious and charitable nature belonging to Mandir Sita Ramji at Pilani or started, dedicated or founded by the Biria Family. Inasmuch as the land in question was attached to an old mandir of this very land it was outside the purview of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued in 1959 but without considering this question and without affording an opportunity to Shree Sita Ram Bhandar or any one on behalf of Mandir Sita Ramji to substantiate this plea a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made. The contention, therefore, boiled down to whether the land in question was attached to either Mandir Sita Ramji or any other Mandir. The stand of the appellants was that no Mandir existed on the land in question prior to 1959. So, what had first to be determined was whether there was a Mandir, as alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition. Since the land in question was subject to land revenue, we directed production of relevant revenue record in respect of Khasra No. 1227 to find out if any temple was shown in the jamabandi at any time prior to 1959. Jamabandies for the years 1933-34 to 1949-50 were produced but did not show any temple being located in Khasra No. 1227. A fresh direction was, therefore, issued to produce the jamabandies for the years 1950-51 to 1959. In response to this direction an affidavit was filed sworn by Shri K. N. Srivastava, Revenue Assistant, Delhi to the effect that though normally jamabandies are prepared every four years yet no jamabandies for the years relevant to the present case were prepared between the years 1953-54 and 1957-58 or between the years 1958-59 and 1961-62. Thus, there was no revenue record available for the year 1959-60 to find out whether any temple existed on Khasra No. 1227 when the notification under Section 4 was published. Thus, there was no revenue record available for the year 1959-60 to find out whether any temple existed on Khasra No. 1227 when the notification under Section 4 was published. An affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition sworn by Shri Raghbir Singh, Advocate who was Tehsildar of Delhi Tehsil during 1955 to 1960 and another affidavit of Shri Sant Lal who was the Kanungo for Shahdara Circle, Delhi Tehsil during the period 1958 to 1960 were filed during the hearing on 5th April, 1972 to the effect that a temple did exist on the land in question in the year 1959. However, these are disputed questions of fact which will have to await the decision of the appeal. At present all that we are concerned with is the hearing under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 3 ) SHREE Sita Ram Bhandar had filed its objections under Section 5a of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector but it seems the same were not traceable at the time of hearing before the Land Acquisition Collector. So, at the time of hearing another copy of the objections earlier filed was handed over on which the then Land Acquisition Collector, Shri M. L. Mongia had made the following endorsement:- "pi. report if this property is that of mandir Sita Ramji, a charitable institution and is exempt from the notification. " ( 4 ) THIS endorsement was made on 27th July, 1962. It is the common case of the parties that no report was received by the Land Acqusition Collector in spite of his having called for one. The Land Acquisition Collector made his report to the Delhi Administration on 8th August, 1962 and that has been shown to us. In that report he has noticed that objections were filed on behalf of Shree Sita Ram Bhandar and after noticing the lands and houses in respect of which Shree Sita Ram Bhandar had filed objections the Land Acquisition Collector had made the following report:- "decision may kindly be taken after the inspection of site. " ( 5 ) THE Delhi Administration, it is common ground of the parties, did not hear either the petitioner in the writ petition oranyone on behalf of Shree Sita Ram Bhandar prior to making of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. " ( 5 ) THE Delhi Administration, it is common ground of the parties, did not hear either the petitioner in the writ petition oranyone on behalf of Shree Sita Ram Bhandar prior to making of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that the objection that the land did not fall within the purview of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not considered after hearing anyone on behalf of the petitioner. Mrs. Shyamla Pappu brought to our attention the detailed note of the Delhi Administration and urged that the Delhi Administration had considered the objection regarding the said land being out of the purview of the notification. We may set out the exact phraseology of the note in the Delhi Administration file, shown to us regarding this objection of the petitioner in the writ petition. It reads as follows:- "according to our Section 4 notification, only those lands are exempted from the purview of acquisition which are attached to religious institutions. This "exclusion" is not applicable on the lands which are owned by the Trusts or religious institutions. Moreover, a portion of the land belonging to the Trust comes in the road alignment and cannot be excluded on practical considerations. In the light of this, the objections filed by the Trust may be rejected. " ( 6 ) AS we have said that, prima facie, it appears neither the Land Acquisition Collector nor the Delhi Administration heard anyone on behalf of the petitioner regarding its contention that the land in question fell outside the purview of the acquisition under Section 4 of the Act and so, no declaration under Section 6 of the Act could have been made and if made is contrary to the provisions of Section 5a of the Act. It has consistently been held that the hearing contemplated by Section 5a of the Act is the only safeguard that a person has against his land being acquired and so, the giving of this opportunity of hearing is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. Under the scheme of the Act the hearing is to be given by the Collector and thereafter the satisfaction is to be of the State Government but in the rule laid down by a Bench of this Court in L. P. A. II of 1969, Shri Hanuman Prasad Gupta and others v. Lt. Under the scheme of the Act the hearing is to be given by the Collector and thereafter the satisfaction is to be of the State Government but in the rule laid down by a Bench of this Court in L. P. A. II of 1969, Shri Hanuman Prasad Gupta and others v. Lt. Governor, Union Territory of Delhi and Others, decided on 6th November, 1970, (1) the Collector could refer for the decision of the State Government the question as to whether a particular land did or did not fall within the purview of a notification under Section 4 of the Act. This is exactly what was done by the Collector in the present case without even waiting for a report which he had called for on the objections of Shree Sita Ram Bhandar. The Delhi Administration may or may not be under an obligation in such circumstances to hear the Objector but we feel that some sort of a hearing should be given in view of Section 5a of the Act and thereafter the Delhi Administration may record its satisfaction regarding the objections raised. Since one of the objection of the petitioner in the writ petition was about hearing so, without commenting upon the meaning to be given to the word "attached to" in the Section 4 notification in this case and other contentions of the parties we direct that the hearing of the present appeal should stand over and in the mean time the petitioner will be given a hearing by the Delhi Administration on the objections that have been filed by Shree Sita Ram Bhandar and a report about it as well as the decision of the Delhi Administration should be submitted to this court by 27th April, 1972 and the appeal itself should be listed for hearing on 28th April, 1972.