JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:---The short point involved in this writ petition is, whether failure on the part of the authorities to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) by not affording an opportunity of hearing vitiates the declaration under section 6 of the Act. 2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 154, admeasuring 2.37 acres, situated at village Kakanwada, Tq. Sangrampur, district Buldana. The respondent No. 3 had initiated the proceeding for acquisition of the said land for extension of gaothan of that village. Notification under section 5 of the Act was issued on 8-4-1988 wherein it was proposed to acquire 0.90 acres of land from Survey No. 154. The notice under section 4 of the Act was served on the petitioner, pursuant to which he appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer and filed his objection on 14-9-1988. Thereafter on 18-9-1988 after inspection of the spot, the respondent No. 3 submitted report to the Commissioner and sought administrative and financial sanction for approval of the draft notification under section 6 of the Act and thereafter notification under section 6 was approved on 21-2-1989 by the Commissioner and also published in the local newspaper Mahasagar on 4-3-1989 and also declared through Talathi on 27-3-1989. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 29-3-1989 for issuance of notice under section 9(1) of the Act. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that opportunity of hearing, as is required under section 5-A of the Act, was not given to the petitioner and hence the declaration under section 6 of the Act cannot be sustained in law. 4. The learned A.G.P. does not dispute that the petitioner had raised objection for acquiring the land out of Survey No. 154 at the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act and, therefore, special inspection was undertaken and inspection note was accordingly prepared on 18-8-1988 and thereafter draft notification under section 6 of the Act was submitted to the Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. He submitted that the petitioner had submitted his objection-cum-written statement on 14-8-1988 and also filed an application for inspection of the spot and, therefore, the spot inspection was done on 18-8-1988 and draft notification under section 6 of the Act was sent for approval to the Commissioner. He submitted that the petitioner had submitted his objection-cum-written statement on 14-8-1988 and also filed an application for inspection of the spot and, therefore, the spot inspection was done on 18-8-1988 and draft notification under section 6 of the Act was sent for approval to the Commissioner. He contended that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have carefully considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. At this juncture, it is necessary to reproduce section 5-A of the Act which reads thus: "(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, or to 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 object or an opportunity of being hear (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 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. (3) ......" 6. The decision of the (appropriate Government) (or, as the case may be, of the Commissioner) on the objections shall be final. (3) ......" 6. This Court while dealing with the similar question in the case of (Khushalrao Tulshiramji Pandao v. State of Maharashtra)1, 2001(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)706 held that the plain reading of sub-section (2) of section 5-A of the Act 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 parcels 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 person 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. 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. The heart of section 5-A of the Act is the hearing of the objections and in sub-section (2) of that section a personal hearing is mandatorily provided for. Section 5-A does not rest on a persons demand for personal hearing. 7. The heart of section 5-A of the Act is the hearing of the objections and in sub-section (2) of that section a personal hearing is mandatorily provided for. Section 5-A does not rest on a persons demand for personal hearing. 7. This Court while dealing with the aforesaid question followed the decision of Apex Court in (Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Governor of Delhi)2, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1868 wherein it has been laid down that 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. 8. This Court also considered another decision of the Apex Court in (Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad)3, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2095 wherein it was held that the heart of section 5-A of the Act is the hearing of the objections and in sub-section (2) of that section a personal hearing is mandatorily provided for. Section 5-A does not rest on a persons demand for personal hearing. Similarly, the decision in (Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar)4, 1993(4) S.C.C. 255 , was also taken into consideration wherein it was held that 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. But once section 5-A is kept applicable, there is no cause to treat its provisions lightly or casually. 9. In the present case, it is not disputed that the land admeasuring 0.90 acres of land out of Survey No. 154 belonging to the petitioner was sought to be acquired and notification under section 4 of the Act has already been published. 9. In the present case, it is not disputed that the land admeasuring 0.90 acres of land out of Survey No. 154 belonging to the petitioner was sought to be acquired and notification under section 4 of the Act has already been published. The petitioner had submitted objections in the nature of written statement on 14-9-1988 which were taken on record. The order sheets dated 14-9-1988 and 18-9-1988 are as under: "14-9-88. Shri Pingle Advocate with applicant. He has filed written statement. He has also filed application to see the spot. Put up for spot inspection. Case for ............ 18-9-88. 18-9-88. On 18-9-88 Survey No. 154 of village Kakanwadi Bk. was seen for acquisition. The inspection note is placed on record. Administrative and financial sanction from the Collector should be called and a draft notification under section 6 should be issued." (Translated by us) 10. We have perused the record and proceedings and what we find is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before making recommendations to the Commissioner for approval of the draft notification under section 6 of the Act. This Court has also taken a view in Khushalrao case, cited supra, personal hearing to the owner of the land is mandatory under section 5-A(2) of the Act and failure on the part of the authorities to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 5-A by not affording an opportunity of hearing vitiates the declaration under section 6 of the Act. We are bound by this decision and, therefore, in the present case also, we have no hesitation to hold that the respondents have failed to comply with the mandatory provision of section 5-A of the Act. Consequently, we quash and set aside the declaration under section 6 of the Act and direct the respondents to hear the petitioner as contemplated under section 5-A of the Act, and for that purpose we direct the petitioner to appear before respondent No. 3 on 27-10-2003 on which date the respondent would hear the petitioner and conclude the hearing within a period of eight weeks therefrom. With these observations, rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. The record and proceedings be sent back without any delay to the authorities concerned. C.C. expedited. Rule made absolute accordingly. -----