H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the preliminary notification issued by the first respondent so far as it relates to the land belonging to the petitioner, bearing Sy. No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli Village, South taluk, Bangalore, measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, by the Land acquisition Notification No. LAQ (l) SR-14/86-87, dated 24-10-86, copy of the which is Annexure-B to the writ petition. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the final notification issued by the respondent 2, vide Notification No. RD. 164/aqb/83, dated 23-1-1988, so far as it relates to the land bearing Sy. No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, copy of which is Annexure-D to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for grant or issuance of such other and further writ order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are:that the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the allegation to the effect that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli Village, South Taluk, Bangalore, measuring approximately 1 acre 6 guntas, which the petitioner claims to have purchased from one Lingappa under a registered sale deed dated 18-2-1970. According to the petitioner's case, on the above land in dispute there is a farm house and a watchman shed. The petitioner's case is that the land is located within the gramatana and the same is surrounded by residential houses. The petitioner's further case is that petitioner's other lands than the land in dispute has already been acquired by B. W. S. and S. B. , bangalore, Bangalore Development Authority, Aeronautical department, Bangalore, Defence Department, Bangalore from 1962 onwards. The petitioner's case is that the present land in question, namely, Sy. No. 52/2-A is an agricultural land consisting a farm house and a shed for watchman and has not been suitable for acquisition. The petitioner's case is that the present land in question, namely, Sy. No. 52/2-A is an agricultural land consisting a farm house and a shed for watchman and has not been suitable for acquisition. According to the allegations made in the writ petition, the respondent No. 1, issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') notifying that the lands mentioned therein along with the above mentioned disputed land has been required by respondent No. 3 for the formation of the house sites. The petitioner has annexed that notification dated 24-10-1986 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 6-11-1986 as Annexure-B to the writ petition. The petitioner states that he was not served the notice under Section 4 (1) of the karnataka Land Acquisition Act. On having come to know about the publication of the preliminary notification from the owners of the neighbouring lands, the petitioner has filed his objections to the preliminary notification before the 4th respondent on 26th december, 1986, stating therein that the land in question has not been a fit one for acquisition. He further states that the other lands belonging to the petitioner in all measuring 31 acres has already been acquired and it was prayed therein that the preliminary notification in such circumstances be withdrawn. The petitioner has further submitted that no inquiry was held by the opposite parties in pursuance of the objections filed by the petitioner, though that is a material requisite to be performed before proceeding further, in view of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act read with Rule 5 of the karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 1965. The petitioner's case is that without holding an enquiry and without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing and that having his say in the matter, respondent 2 issued the final notification under section 6 (1) of the Act on 23-1-1988, which is numbered as RD. 164/aqb/83, dated 23-1-1988. Having felt aggrieved with the notification - preliminary and final, the copies of which having annexed as Annexures-B and D to this petition, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) NO counter affidavit or statement of objections appears to have been filed in this particular writ petition. 164/aqb/83, dated 23-1-1988. Having felt aggrieved with the notification - preliminary and final, the copies of which having annexed as Annexures-B and D to this petition, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) NO counter affidavit or statement of objections appears to have been filed in this particular writ petition. The appearance have been put in on behalf of the opposite party No. 3 by Sri V. N. Satyanarayana, Advocate assisted by Smt. Veena Antin and on behalf of opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 appearance has been put by smt. Bharathi Nagesh, learned Government counsel. ( 4 ) THE main contentions of the petitioner's counsel has been that there has been non-compliance with Section 5-A of the Act and after filing of the objections, no enquiry was held 'and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuing of the final notification. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, namely, Sri Satyanarayana and Smt. Bharathi Nagesh, have very fairly stated that the petitioner's contention is correct that the opposite parties have not held any enquiry and no personal hearing was given to the petitioner after the filing of the objections by him. ( 5 ) IN view of this admitted state of affairs, it appears that the notification that have been issued under Section 6 (1) has been issued without duly complying with the requirements, of Section 5-A of the Act. Section 5-A of the Act reads as under:"5-A. Hearing of objections. (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, (within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification), object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard (in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf} or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, (either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that government ). The decision of the (appropriate government) on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act. " ( 6 ) A perusal of sub-section (2) shows and that it provides that every objection under sub-section (1) has got to be made in writing to the Collector and once the objection has been filed in writing, the Collector has been required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or through any person authorised by him including a legal practioner. It is further required that Collector will after hearing the matter make such further enquiry as it appears to be necessary in the matter for disposing of the objection and thereafter the Collector will make the report in respect of the land with reference to which notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act had been issued to the proper Government containing its recommendation on the objections together with the record of the proceedings held by him and thereafter Government have to take the decision on the matter and the decision of the Government on the objection shall be final. This stage not having intervened between the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) and notification under Section 6 (1), in my opinion, the notification annexure-D appears to be illegal and this has to be quashed in view of the language of Section 6 itself. This stage not having intervened between the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) and notification under Section 6 (1), in my opinion, the notification annexure-D appears to be illegal and this has to be quashed in view of the language of Section 6 itself. Section 6 of the Land acquisition Act, particularly sub-section (1) provides that the government has to be satisfied that a particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, then a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of the Secretary to State government or of some officer authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time. Sub-section (1) further provides that this satisfaction has not to be made only after having considered and applied its mind to the report that is required to be made by the Collector to government, in other words, the satisfaction and the declaration regarding the land that the land is required for the public purpose is to be made only after having considered the reports submitted by the Collector under Section 5-A and not earlier. This is a condition precedent to the making of satisfaction and declaration. This condition not having been satisfied, in my opinion, the notification contained in Annexure-D is illegal, null and void and deserves to be quashed. ( 7 ) THE petitioner's counsel has raised another contention challenging Annexure-B to the writ petition that is the preliminary notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The petitioner's counsel submits that as per Annexure-B, the name of the person whose land is taken is mentioned as kodanda Reddy as it has been mentioned in the notification. The petitioner's counsel's contention is that the land which is sought to be acquired really belongs to him and his correct name is D. R. Kodandarama Reddy. The mistake appears in the notification to the effect that 'rama' expression has been omitted from the name which stand in-between Kodanda and Reddy. On this ground itself, he submits that the notification itself is illegal and bad. The petitioner has filed the copy of the revenue record entries relating to Sy. No. 52/2-A as Annexure-A and entries related to the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. On this ground itself, he submits that the notification itself is illegal and bad. The petitioner has filed the copy of the revenue record entries relating to Sy. No. 52/2-A as Annexure-A and entries related to the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. It is with reference to the land in dispute, the name of the petitioner as the owner of the land has been shown as D. R. Kodandarama Reddy. The petitioner has taken an objection to this effect in his objections which has been filed in pursuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. This mistake might not have occurred in notification under Section 6 (1), had the objections of the petitioner being considered and had he been heard in regard to that and evidence would have be lead into, but as the authorities have not considered his objections and has not heard him on the objection, so the mistake has also crept in the Annexure-D as well as in Annexure-B. ( 8 ) THE omission of certain expression 'rama' from the name of the petitioner may have vital effect in case as difficulties may arise after acquisition the question of payment of compensation may arise. So, at this stage, it would be proper for the authorities to consider that aspect of the matter and they may correct that mistake before issuing the final notification. At the preliminary state, it cannot be said to be a very material mistake in the sense that it cannot be rectified, really that mistake can be rectified in case objections allowed. So, notification on this ground cannot be declared to be illegal. It is open to the authorities to correct the description of the petitioner's name given therein. ( 9 ) IN that view of my findings of fact that there has been violation of the principles of law under Section 5-A (2), the notification dated 23-1-1988 has got to be quashed. When I so take the view, I find support from the view expressed by a division Bench of this Court in the case of Narayana Reddy v state of Karnataka. When I so take the view, I find support from the view expressed by a division Bench of this Court in the case of Narayana Reddy v state of Karnataka. At page 2328, the Division Bench has been pleased to observe as under:"the order sheet of the inquiring authority disclosed that the enquiry proceedings were adjourned on 27-4-1987 in view of the stay order without fixing any date and that after the stay order was vacated the proceedings were continued on 26-8-1987. The records do not disclose that any notice was given to the petitioners to appear before the inquiring authority on 26-8-1987 or any other date. Without doing so, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report. As the holding of enquiry under Section 5-A in accordance with the rules is mandatory, in view of the said provision and also the provisions of the Land Acquisition rules, the final notification in respect of the Jayanagar society in so far it relates to the lands of the petitioners, is liable to be set aside on this ground. " ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The writ is allowed to the extent and the notification No. RD. 164/aqb/83, dated 23-1-1988 is hereby quashed only to the extent it deals and it relates to Sy. No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli, South Taluk, Bangalore measuring approximately 1 acre 6 guntas. It is open to the opposite parties to proceed under Section 5-A of the Act in accordance with law after issuing due and proper notice to the petitioner. The costs of the petition are made easy. --- *** --- .