JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---Rule. 2. By consent of learned Counsel for parties heard forthwith. 3. The petitioners seek to quash and set aside the declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the said Act) dated 28-4-2000 and further to quash and set aside the entire acquisition for village Ghoddeo Minor Irrigation Tank. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents proposed to construct Ghoddeo Minor Irrigation Tank. The main object of the project was to provide suitable quantity of water for agricultural purpose. According to the petitioners the said project has lost its purpose and is futile in view of the fact that Upper Wardha Project sufficiently meets the requirements of the farmers in the region. 5. The acquisition is mainly challenged on the ground that the declaration under section 6 of the said Act has not been published within a period of one year as required from the publication of preliminary notification under section 4(1) and secondly before such publication of the declaration under section 6 it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as contemplated under section 5A and as that has not been done, the impugned declaration deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing did not press for the first objection relating to publication of the declaration under section 6 of the said Act within a period of one year from the date of publication of preliminary notification under section 4(1) and restricts the challenge to the publication of declaration under section 6 of the said Act only on the ground that the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 5A before proceeding further and issuing declaration under section 6 of the said Act. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners received a notice dated 13-12-1999 calling upon them to file their objection to the acquisition of their land and the date for such filing of objection and hearing was given as 17-12-1999 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that on 17-12-1999 the petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 3 in person and through their Counsel who sought adjournment for filing preliminary objection. It is submitted that on 17-12-1999 the petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 3 in person and through their Counsel who sought adjournment for filing preliminary objection. Therefore, the proceedings came to be adjourned to 27-12-1999 and on 27-12-1999 objections in writing came to be filed before the respondent No. 3, but no hearing took place; nor the petitioners were informed by the respondent No. 3 about any date of hearing and proceeded with the matter without giving an opportunity to the petitioners of hearing and that is how the whole proceeding stands vitiated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in (Shri Mandir Sita Ramji-appellant v. Governor of Delhi and others-respondents)1, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1868, (Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and another appellants v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and another respondents)2, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 2095, (Shyam Nandan Prasad and others appellants v. State of Bihar and others, respondents)3, 1993(4) Supreme Court Cases 255, (Hausila Bux Singh petitioners v. State of U.P. and another opposite parties)4, A.I.R. 1977 Allahabad 474. 8. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that it is mandatory for the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before proceeding further in the matter and this is the consistent view of the courts in the various decisions cited by him. Therefore, the declaration made under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners have no case in so far as their challenge to the declaration made under section 6 of the said Act is concerned on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. It is submitted that in the notice issued to the petitioners it was specifically mentioned that their land is being acquired for village Ghoddeo Minor Irrigation Tank Project and that they should file their objections in writing by themselves or through their Advocate and at the time of their filing of such objection there will be hearing in person or through their Advocate. Therefore, there was clear notice given to the petitioner that there will be hearing at the time of filing of their objections. Therefore, there was clear notice given to the petitioner that there will be hearing at the time of filing of their objections. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that accordingly the petitioners appeared on 17-12-1999 before the respondent No. 3 in person and through their Advocate and sought adjournment to file objections. They were granted time till 27-12-1999. On 27-12-1999 the petitioners appeared in person and through their Advocate before the respondent No. 3 and filed their objections as required under section 5A(1). It is submitted that after filing objections no submission was made by the petitioners or their Advocate and therefore, the matter was closed for further steps by respondent No. 3 who thereafter sent the objections raised by the petitioners to the Executive Engineer for his comments and after receiving the comments of the Executive Engineer the report was sent to the State Government and on receiving such report the Government was satisfied that the land is needed for public purpose and a declaration as required under section 6(1) came to be published within the prescribed time. Therefore, now the petitioners cannot object to the said declaration on the ground that they were not given any opportunity of hearing by the respondents. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the decision in (Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt-petitioner v. State of Gujrath and others respondents)5, A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 1549. It is submitted that as the petitioners have not availed of the opportunity and having chosen only to file objections in writing, the fault does not lie at the doorsteps of the respondents. The learned Government Pleader submitted that this Court in the case of (Madhao Ramchandra Naniwadekar and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 12 others)6, 1998(4) Bom.C.R. 171 , relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rambhai Lakhabai Bhakt (cited supra) has taken a view that if the petitioner does not avail of the opportunity afforded to him under section 5A(2), he cannot come with a plea that no opportunity was given to him and therefore in the facts of the case there has been sufficient compliance of section 5A of the said Act and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. 10. The relevant provision of section 5A relating to hearing of objections reads as under: "5A(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made (to the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer, where he has published a notification under sub-section (1) of section 4, in writing) and (the Collector or, as the case may be, the Land Acquisition Officer shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard (in person or by any person authorized 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 report in respect of different, parcels of such land, (to the appropriate Government or, as the case may be to the Commissioner (such report or reports by the Land Acquisition Officer being made to the State Government or to the Commissioner, if so directed by the State Government) containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the Commissioner). The decision of the (appropriate Government) (or, as the case may be, of the Commissioner) on the objections shall be final." (emphasis supplied) The plain reading of sub-section (2) of section 5A makes it clear that the objection has to be given in writing, to the Collector or as the case may be the Land Acquisition Officer and the said authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or any person authorized 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(1) or make different reports in respect of different all persons, of land, to the appropriate Government or as the case may be to the Commissioner. This clearly indicates that it is obligatory on the part of the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer to give the objector an opportunity of being heard and it is only after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry if any, as he thinks necessary, that he can make a report and unless the persons interested in the land which has been notified under section 4(1) has been given an opportunity of being heard, the authority concerned cannot proceed further. 11. The observance of procedure laid down by the statute before depriving a person of his property is necessary to generate the feeling that the rule of law prevails in this country. When a procedure is prescribed by the legislature, it is not for the Court to substitute a different one according to its notion of justice. Therefore, the decision by the Government on the objection, when Collector afforded no opportunity of being heard to the objector would not be proper. Shri Mandir Sita Ramji---appellant v. Governor of Delhi and others respondents, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1868. 12. In order to satisfy ourselves as to whether there has been compliance of the requirement under section 5A of the said Act, i.e. opportunity of being heard is given to the petitioners or not, we have examined the record and proceeding in the matter before the respondent No. 3. The relevant note-sheet in vernacular is reproduced below: ^^17 12 1999 lacaf/kr 'skrd ;kauk dye 4 P;k uksVhlh ctko.;kr vkY;k vlwu R;kuqlkj [kkyhy dkLrdkj gtj @ XkSjgtj gksrs- dye 5¼v½ ph pkSd'kh iw.kZ dsyh- - - - - 1 rs 13 jk- ?kksMnso] rk- eks'khZ] R;kaps ofdyk ekQZr gtj] ;kauh ofdyi= o osGsoj uksVhl feGkY;kps ueqn d#u gjdr ?ks.;kl vtkZ}kjs osG ekfxryk- R;akuk rks 27 12 1999 i;Zr gjdr nk[ky dj.;kl osG ns.;kr vkyk o iq<hy izdj.kkr rkjh[k 27 12 1999 gh ns.;kr vkyh vkgs- lgh@ 27 12 1999 lnj izdj.kkr dye 5¼v½ P;k pkSd'khdjhrk lacaf/krkauh ofdyk ekQZr 27 12 1999 gh rkjh[k ekxwu ?ksryh gksrh- R;kuqlkj lacaf/krkauh ofdyk ekQZr gjdrh vtZ lnj dsysr- - - - - 1 rs 12 - - - lnj gjdrh dk;Zdkjh vfHk;ark y-ik- ¼LFkk- Lrj½ foHkkx vejkorh ;kauk iq<hy dk;Zokgh djhrk ikBok- lgh@ fo"ks'k Hkqlaiknu vf/kdkjh] ¼y-fla-dkes½ vejkorh- 13. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that opportunity of hearing was offered to the petitioners and their lawyer and they did not avail of the same does not appear to be proper. What we find from the note sheet is that on 27-12-1999, the petitioners appeared in person and through their Counsel and filed their objection which was taken on record and thereafter the respondent No. 3 forwarded the objections filed by the petitioners to the Executive Engineer for further steps. No where it is recorded that the petitioners or their Counsel are heard in the matter and except for filing of objections by the petitioners and their Counsel, nothing more is recorded in the note-sheet. The note-sheet being a contemporaneous record of what happened on 27-12-1999 before the respondent No. 3 clearly indicates that the petitioners or their Counsel were not heard in the matter. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to point out to us from the record and proceedings as to whether at any stage thereafter the petitioners were called upon for hearing. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the petitioners were given an opportunity of personal hearing, but they did not avail of the same and having given up the opportunity cannot be now heard on the point, that they were not given any opportunity of being heard. The heart of section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act is the hearing of the objections and in sub-section (2) of that section a personal hearing is mandatorily provided for. Section 5A does not rest on a person's demand for personal hearing, the matter may be different, if the person whose property is acquired abandons the right to a personal hearing Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and another---appellants v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and another---respondents, A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 2095. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners were not given opportunity of being heard and the acquisition proceedings were proceeded further without complying with the mandatory requirement. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners were not given opportunity of being heard and the acquisition proceedings were proceeded further without complying with the mandatory requirement. The learned Government pleader tried to make a point that the note-sheet is also silent about the fact that the petitioners made any submissions so as to avail of the opportunity of being heard which was given to them or sought any adjournment to place on record any documentary or oral evidence, which is a clear indication that they have abandoned the right of personal hearing. In Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad's case the Supreme Court in clear terms laid down that section 5A does rests on a person's demand for personal hearing and therefore, this attempt on the part of the learned Government Pleader to save the proceedings from being quashed does not help the authorities. 14. In Shyam Nandan Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1993(4) Supreme Court Cases 255 the Supreme Court held that: "The proceeding before the Collector is a blend of public and individual enquiry. The person interested, or known to be interested, in the land is to be served personally of the notification, giving him the opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and awakening him to such right. That the objection is to be in writing is indicative of the fact that the enquiry into the objection is to focus his individual cause as well as public cause. That at the time of the enquiry, for which prior notice shall be essential, the objector has the right to appear in person or through pleader and substantiate his objection by evidence and argument. And lastly, since the decision of the Collector may turn out to be final, unless interfered with by the Government suo motu or on application, the Collector's decision is that of a quasi judicial authority arrived at by quasi judicial method. Affording of opportunity of being heard to the objector is a must. The provision embodies a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have the occasion to persuade the authorities concerned that his property be not touched for acquisition. This right is not absolute, however, if the appropriate Government in its discretion, chooses to dispense with its applicability by invoking urgency provisions of section 17 of the Act. This right is not absolute, however, if the appropriate Government in its discretion, chooses to dispense with its applicability by invoking urgency provisions of section 17 of the Act. But once section 5A is kept applicable, there is no cause to treat its provisions lightly or casually." 15. We therefore, hold that as the respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 5A of the said Act by not affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and having proceeded further by issuing declaration that the land of the petitioners is required for public purpose as required under section 6, the said declaration under section 6 is vitiated and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 16. We therefore, quash and set aside the declaration under section 6 Act and direct the respondents authorities to hear the petitioners as contemplated under section 5A of the said Act and for that purpose we direct the petitioners to appear before the respondent No. 3 on 1-3-2001. On 1-3-2001 the respondents would hear the petitioners and conclude the hearing within a period of 4 weeks and in case certain expert evidence is required to be led and if the same is not available within the said time, we grant further time of two weeks and thereafter take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 17. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----