JUDGMENT - V.M. KANADE, J.:---The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging acquisition proceeding initiated by the respondents for acquiring their land Survey No. 49, admeasuring 2.50 H.Rs. situated at village Loni, Tahsil and District Akola. 2. The respondents initiated the acquisition proceeding under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by issuing notification dated 4-6-1987 and the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of extension of gaothan. 3. The respondents filed their objection to the said notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on various grounds. Thereafter, a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the respondents on 7-12-1987 and published on 31-12-1987. 4. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the acquisition proceeding on various grounds. The main ground of challenging the said proceeding is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners in the enquiry which was held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and that the report which was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Collector was given only after considering the written objections which were filed by the petitioners. 5. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and respondents. We have perused the copy of the petition and annexures thereto and we have also gone through the record which has been produced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 6. The note-sheet in respect of the proceeding which have been produced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents reveals that on 25-5-1987 the land owner Shri Rambhau Patil was present and he has submitted his objection. The said note-sheet does not indicate that any personal hearing was given to the petitioners. Immediately thereafter on the next date as indicated in the note-sheet, a notification in respect of section 6 was issued on 7-12-1987. 7. The said note-sheet does not indicate that any personal hearing was given to the petitioners. Immediately thereafter on the next date as indicated in the note-sheet, a notification in respect of section 6 was issued on 7-12-1987. 7. The land initially was sought to be acquired for the purpose of extension of gaothan on account of the demand made by the Gram Panchayat for extension of gaothan due to the fact that during rainy season there used to floods in the village and as a result it was essential to extend the gaothan land and a resolution to that effect was passed by the Gram Panchayat being Resolution No. 33, dated 25-7-1986. The Gram Panchayat had filed Civil Application No. 5053 of 2002 for seeking permission to intervene in the matter and in the said civil application they have mentioned that since there was no flood in the nala, villagers were not affected by the flood and, therefore, they had passed a resolution that they did not wish to acquire the said land. We have, however, rejected the said civil application mainly on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage just prior to the final hearing of this writ petition. The fact, however, remains that there is an affidavit on record filed by the Gram Panchayat indicating that they may not require the present land. 8. Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows: 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 and, 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. 9. Sub-clause (2) very clearly states that an opportunity should be given to the objector of being heard in person or by any person authorised in his behalf and only after hearing all such objections and making such further inquiry, as he thinks fit, make a report to the appropriate Government. This position is quite well settled in the Apex Court in the case of (Shri Mandir Sita Ramji-Appellant v. Governor of Delhi and others-Respondents)1, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1868, as also in (Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and another-Appellants v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and another-Respondents)2, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2095, and in the case of (Shyam Nandan Prasad and others-Appellants v. State of Bihar and others-Respondents)3, 1993(4) S.C.C. 255 , and also a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Khushalrao Tulshiramji Pandao v. State of Maharashtra)4, reported in 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)706 : 2001(4) Mh.L.J. page 510, has held 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 he can make a report. 10. 10. In the present case, though the note-sheet does indicate that on 25-5-1985 the land owner Shri Rambhau Patil was present and that he had submitted his objection, it does not indicate that any personal hearing was given to him. It also does not indicate as to whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer had informed him that on that date he was deciding his objection, the note-sheet, therefore, is rather vague and does not clearly indicate whether an opportunity of personal hearing has been given to him or not. Another important fact which has been brought to out notice is that the Gram Panchayat which had passed the Resolution initially which is the body for which the land has been acquired, has now indicated that it does not require the said land. Under these special circumstances and in view of the vague noting in the note-sheet which has been brought to our notice by the respondents, we would like to remand the matter back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer and direct him to give a fresh personal hearing to the petitioners. 11. In this view of the matter, the notification which is issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 7-12-1987 and published in the Gazette on 31-12-1987 is quashed and set aside. 12. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioners and or their authorised representatives. The petitioners will appear on 2nd September, 2002 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer at 11.00 a.m. It is made clear that no separate notice shall be issued to the petitioners and that they should appear before the concerned officers and the concerned officers shall give a fresh hearing to the petitioners in respect of the objections which are filed by him. 13. It is further directed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide and complete this inquiry within a period of one month from 2nd September, 2002. The concerned officers i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer shall thereafter take immediate steps if he comes to the conclusion that the land is required for acquisition and for issuance of notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, within the period of limitation. 14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties to act on the steno copy duly authenticated by the Section Officer. -----