JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal. J.:-Chuni Lal and many others were owners of land in Kadmpur, District Gurgaon adjoining the Group Centre of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) wihich had been set up on at about 265 acres. This tract of land had been acquired under award dated December 31, 1999. When Group Centre needed additional land, request was made to the Government on July 18, 2001 for acquiring acres on the eastern side of the Centre, 41 acres on the western side and a strip of 3.43 acres. 2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on July 4, 2003 for acquisition of 43 acres for the establishment of the CRPF Academy at Kadarpur, including land owned by the petitioners. Objections were filed by the petitioners stating that they were small farmers, have no other means of livelihood and were dependent upon the said piece of land. It was also pleaded that 265 acres of the Panchayat of Kadarpur was earlier acquired for the Group Centre and a proposal for acquiring 61 acres of Panchayat land had also been sent. Apart from this there was large area of vacant panchayat land which was not being used for any other purpose and was most suitable for the Centre. Therefore, the acquisition of the present 43 acres, belonging to poor farmers, would drive them to starvation. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the prevailing market value was Rs. 5000/- per square yard in the developed posh residential and commercial areas and the acquired land had high potential. In some well known residential colonies, land was being sold at Rs.10,000/- per square yard. Therefore, the petitioners pleaded that their land be exempted from acquisition but in case this was not possible, they should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/- per square yard. 3. After the objections were filed the petitioners were summoned by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) to appear before him on January 2, 2004. The petitioners appeared on the date fixed. According to the petitioners the Collector was not present in his office. The Collector’s staff obtained signatures of the petitioners on blank sheets of paper and asked them about the substance of their objections. The petitioners reiterated their stand and stated that banjar kadim land owned by the panchayat should be acquired. The petitioners appeared on the date fixed. According to the petitioners the Collector was not present in his office. The Collector’s staff obtained signatures of the petitioners on blank sheets of paper and asked them about the substance of their objections. The petitioners reiterated their stand and stated that banjar kadim land owned by the panchayat should be acquired. They also requested the staff to inspect the spot in order appreciate that the alternate land owned by the panchayat was equally suitable. 4. The petitioner No.1 tried to approach the Collector to obtain his report but he was not supplied the report. Thereafter, he filed an application for copies of the statements recorded by the Collector but even this was declined. The State of Haryana issued the declaration under Section of the Land Acquisition Act on June 23, 2004. 5. The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act have been challenged on the ground that no proper hearing of the objection under Section 5-A was granted to the petitioners, spot was not inspected by the Collector, the Collector’s report was submitted in a mechanical manner and with a pre-determined mind, the petitioners would be rendered landless and would be hard hit if the land was acquired. On March 23, 2007 this petition qua petitioners 5,6,8,9,10,11,12,17,18,31,32,33,35 and 36 was dismissed as they had already received compensation. 6. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 reply was filed by the Collector and on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 reply was filed by Joint Assistant Director, N.W. Zone, CRPF. Respondents 1 and 2 pleaded that the notification under Section 4 had been published in accordance with law, objections under Section 5-A were considered by the Collector, personal hearing was granted and the objections were found to be without merit. Therefore, declaration under Section 6 was issued. The land had been acquired on the basis of the survey carried out by CRPF and the Revenue staff of the Haryana Government. The alternative land suggested by the petitioners which belonged to Gram Panchayat, was found to be unsuitable for construction. The petitioners had been summoned by the Collector who heard them in person. 7. The reply on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 was on the same lines regarding suitability and location of the land. The block of 61 acres belonging to the Panchayat was in the foothills and had been found unfit for construction. The petitioners had been summoned by the Collector who heard them in person. 7. The reply on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 was on the same lines regarding suitability and location of the land. The block of 61 acres belonging to the Panchayat was in the foothills and had been found unfit for construction. It had been brought to the notice of the Collector that 41 acres would be acquired in the first phase and 61 acres would be acquired in the second phase. CRPF had been pressing for acquisition/purchase of 61 acres for creating training facilities for newly appointed officers and in this connection directions had been issued on March 14,2005. 8. Petitioners filed replication to controvert the pleadings. Respondents 3 and 4 also filed additional affidavit to plead that 61 acres, though unsuitable for CRPF Academy, was useful for outdoor training purpose especially, training in counter-insurgency. Photographs of this tract of land were placed on record to show the type of land it was and it why was unsuitable for construction but suitable for outdoor training. 9. The main question to be considered is whether or not the petitioners received a proper hearing of their objections. The petitioners want to save their land from acquisition by advancing the plea that 61 acres of panchayat land, which was also proposed to be acquired, should be suitable for the purpose or the CRPF Academy and their land could be released. Alternatively, the petitioners pleaded that they should be awarded at the rate of Rs.5000/- per square yard compensation. The nature or hearing that the petitioners deserved was not such which required consideration of facts and recording of evidence. Petitioners suggestion that alternative land was available and should be acquired was obviously unviable for the purposes of the Academy. Great stress was laid down on the Collector’s letter of July 8, 2005 addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (Annexure P-17) wherein the Collector stated that the acquired land was under cultivation, its acquisition would cause great hardship to the landowners, CRPF had earlier acquired 265 acres belonging to the Panchayat and there was sufficient Panchayat land adjacent to the acquired land which could be used by CRPF. The Collector further stated that he had inspected the spot and come to the conclusion that 43 acres of the petitioner’s land should be released and instead the banjar panchayat should be acquired. 10. The Collector further stated that he had inspected the spot and come to the conclusion that 43 acres of the petitioner’s land should be released and instead the banjar panchayat should be acquired. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Annexure P-17and argued on the basis of Shri Mandir Sita Ramji Vs. Governor of Delhi and others AIR 1974 SC 1868, Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and another Vs. The Municipal Corporation of the City Ahmedabad and another, 1976 SC 2095 = 1976 P.L.J. 462, Gopal Krishan Gupta and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another, 1993 P.L.J. 603 and Sher Singh Vs. Union or India, 1982 P.L.J. 494 that the decision of the Collector on objections under Section 5-A of the Act was quasi a judicial act, as such the order disposing of the objections was required to be a speaking order and must display the reasons that compelled the Collector to decide the objections in a particular manner. However, the learned counsel seems to have missed the point that Collectors do not decide the objections, they merely make recommendations. Those recommendations may be accepted or rejected by the Government. It is the decision of the Government which is final and which must prevail. 11. In the present case the declaration under Section 6 was published on June 3. 2004. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act clearly lays down that a declaration to the effect that land is required for public purpose is made after the Government is satisfied that a particular piece of land is needed. However, before this declaration is made the Government considers the objections of the persons interested in the land, together with record of the proceedings held by the Collector and then gives its decision which is final. In the present case the objections were filed before the Collector the (petitioners do not say when this was done, copies of the objections do not mention any dates). The petitioners were called before the Collector on January 2,2004 and a hearing was given to them. Thereafter the objections were rejected by the Government and that decision is final. The declaration under Section 6 was made on June 23,2004. Under these circumstances reliance on the recommendation dated July 8, 2005 (Annexure P-17), which was made long after the publication of the declaration under Section 6, is entirely misplaced and can be of no consequence. Thereafter the objections were rejected by the Government and that decision is final. The declaration under Section 6 was made on June 23,2004. Under these circumstances reliance on the recommendation dated July 8, 2005 (Annexure P-17), which was made long after the publication of the declaration under Section 6, is entirely misplaced and can be of no consequence. Once the declaration is made, the stage for release of land has passed. Thereafter, the Collector takes steps to get the land marked, measured, planned and issues notices to the persons interested to fiel their claims for compensation. The Collector enquires into the various claims and announces his award regarding area of land, the compensation to be paid and apportionment thereof. In the present case the Collector’s award was pronounced on June 22, 2006 and Rs.12.50 lacs per acre was awarded as compensation. A copy of the award has been annexed as Annexure P-7 in a connected writ petition, C.W.P. No. 2541 of 2007 Chuni Lal Vs. State of Haryana. What emerges from the above is that CRPF first set up a Group Centre on 265 acres of land in Kadarpur, thereafter 43 acres was acquired for the CRPF Academy. The petitioners had tried to save their land by suggesting alternative acquisition of 61 acres of Panchayat land but that land was found unsuitable for building purposes, though ideal for outdoor training. Therefore, 43 acres came to be acquired for the Academy and 61 acres for training. The petitioners had a proper hearing. Their objections were rejected because there was no merit in them. The decision of the Government in this regard is final. Any subsequent recommendation to release the land legally impermissible and without substance. No such recommendation could be made after the declaration under Section 6 had been issued. Therefore, we are of the view that the acquisition proceedings were perfectly in order and this petition does not call for any inference. The petition is hereby dismissed. ———————————————