JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner Ramchandra Dhondiba Unde challenges the legality and validity of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as also notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as the same relate to the acquisition of 1 acre and 22 gunthas of land out of S. No. 52/2 situated at village Rahuri Budruk, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. The petitioner also consequently challenges the acquisitions in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications. 2. Mr. B.Y. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned notifications and the acquisition proceedings were illegal and bad and were also in violation of the petitioners fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution. He further contended that the acquisition were bad also on the ground that they were not for a public purpose. He also criticised the slab system applied to the petitioner contending that the same was irrational and in violation of the principle of equality. It is not possible to accept these contentions. Similar and identical contentions were already raised before another Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Sadashiv v. State)1, A.I.R. 1977 Bombay 355 and the Division Bench has exhaustively considered the aforesaid contentions and negatived the same. We are in full agreement with the said decision. Respectfully following the same, we hold that there is no merit in the contentions aforesaid raised by Mr. Deshmukh in the present case. The same are therefore, rejected. 3. Mr. B.Y. Deshmukh, however, further contended that even assuming that the petitioners rights under Article 14 of the Constitution are not in any way affected and even assuming that the slab system is legal and valid and even assuming that the State Government was otherwise entitled to issue the impugned notifications and initiate the instant acquisition proceedings, even so according to the learned Advocate, the respondent cannot deprive the petitioner of his right in the land in question without giving to the petitioner a personal hearing in the matter. Considering the record of the case and the uncontroverted averments made on affidavit in the present petition, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid contention. Here is a case where, after notification under section 4, notice under section 4(1) was given to the petitioner. Considering the record of the case and the uncontroverted averments made on affidavit in the present petition, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid contention. Here is a case where, after notification under section 4, notice under section 4(1) was given to the petitioner. In pursuance of the said notice the petitioner filed his objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mula Project, Ahmednagar. The petitioner also claimed in his written objections that he will, at the hearing of his objections also produce water passes in question in support of his objections. How, in spite of the petitioners written objections, inspite of his specific contention that he will produce the water passes at the hearing of his objections and in spite of his specified claim in his written objections setting forth as to why his lands should not be acquired, the authorities have singularly ignored the whole thing, did not hear the objections, did not hear the petitioner in the matter of his objections, did not give to the petitioner any opportunity to produce the water passes and have blindly issued the subsequent notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and proceeded to take further steps in the matter. 4. The petitioner has specifically averred in his present petition that he was not given any hearing in the matter. He has also specifically averred that his objections were not considered by the authorities concerned. He has also specifically averred that the authorities have not given any reply to the petitioners written objections. All these averments have gone uncontroverted and unchallenged on behalf of the State. Indeed there is no return at all filed in this case, perhaps because a successful return was not possible. Whatever that be, considering the aforesaid uncontroverted facts and circumstances we are of the view that the respondents are not entitled to proceed further with the matter of the impugned acquisitions herein, though at the same time, the acquisition proceedings cannot be totally dropped at this stage. It is axiomatic that before a person is sought to be deprived of his property he should be heard in the matter. Breach of the principles of natural justice can result in the impugned order being invalidated. It would be an implied condition of a valid order particularly when the order seeks to adversely affect a persons right, title and interest in property. Breach of the principles of natural justice can result in the impugned order being invalidated. It would be an implied condition of a valid order particularly when the order seeks to adversely affect a persons right, title and interest in property. Even otherwise, when a persons right title and interest are affected, principles of natural justice are required to be followed, all the more so when breach thereof would result in the right to immovable property being adversely affected. 5. In these circumstances we are inclined to set aside and quash the impugned notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in so far as it relates to the land in question and we are inclined to relegate the matter to the stage of section 4 notification. The respondent will hear the petitioner and his objections in the matter of the acquisition of his hand. The petitioner will be given full opportunity to produce such documents and such passes as he may desire to do so in pursuance of his objections at the hearing. It would be thereafter for the authority concerned to take appropriate decision in the matter. If it still decides to proceed ahead, it will be entitled to do so on merits and in accordance with law. 6. In the result the impugned notification under section 56 of the Land Acquisition Act of February 1975 and published in March 1975, in so far as it results to 1 acres and 22 gunthas out of Serial No. 52/2 situated at village Rahuri Budruk, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, is set aside and quashed. The acquisition proceedings are relegated back to the stage immediately after the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 11th December, 1972 qua the aforesaid land. The respondents will fully comply with the legal procedure and requirements in pursuance of the aforesaid notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent are directed to hear all the objections of the petitioner in that behalf. The respondents are further directed to given a personal hearing to the petitioner and also give to the petitioner herein opportunity to produce all such evidence as he may desire to do so. Further proceedings thereafter may be taken on their own merits and in accordance with law. 7. In the result, Rule is made absolute with costs. -----