Judgment (A.P. Bhangale, J) 1. Heard. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of notification issued by the respondent no. 2 Land Acquisition Officer under Section 6 (2) dated 20.3.1999 published on 1.4.1999 and notice issued under Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act requiring land owner to appear on 27.12.2000 and for raising objections, if any. 2. The facts are as under. The petitioner is owner of land bearing survey no. 2, admeasuring about 5.05 HR situated at village Chandan Pardi, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. The respondent no. 2 issued notice dated 7.3.1998 under Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 calling upon the petitioner to file objections on or before 13.4.1998 regarding proposed acquisition of land admeasuring 1.20 HR from and out of land survey no. 2 for extension of gaothan of village Chandan Pardi. Petitioner had filed objection on 13.4.1998 before respondent no. 2 in LAQ Case No. 8/A-65 of 1996-97. The respondent no.2 had proceeded further rejecting objection in absence of petitioner and forwarded proposal to the Commissioner for issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act which was published in Government Gazette on 1st April 1999. Petitioner had moved respondent no.2 with request to take the case on board for hearing on 8.3.1999. The matter was fixed for hearing on 10.3.1999. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent proceeded with the acquisition arbitrarily and illegally by issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act and issuing notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act calling upon him to appear on 27.12.2000 to claim compensation and to file objection, if any. Petitioner had filed his objection on 13.4.1998, inter-alia, stating that there is no remarkable increase in population of village since last ten years; most of the members in the families are leaving village for either education purpose or for employment; sufficient people have not applied for allotment of residential plots and that the Gram Panchayat will not be able to provide adequate facilities to the villagers. 3. It is case of the petitioner that he had no opportunity to know the answer to the objections raised for proposed acquisition as no inquiry was conducted as required and thus, there was violation of Section 5A of the Act. 3. It is case of the petitioner that he had no opportunity to know the answer to the objections raised for proposed acquisition as no inquiry was conducted as required and thus, there was violation of Section 5A of the Act. Inquiry under Section 5A is statutory and petitioner had every right to participate and he should have been given adequate opportunity to participate in the inquiry. Authority concerned has ignored the requirement of law. 4. Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable in the State of Maharashtra in view of Maharashtra Act 39 of 1972 w.e.f. 10.10.1972 reads as under : 5-A. Hearing of objections. - (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4, subsection (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 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, as the case may be, the Land Acquisition Officer 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 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 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 on the objections shall be final... . 5. Compliance of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act has been held mandatory in view of observations in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai reported in AIR 2005 SC 3520. Relevant observations of the Apex Court are as under : 9. ..... . 5. Compliance of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act has been held mandatory in view of observations in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai reported in AIR 2005 SC 3520. Relevant observations of the Apex Court are as under : 9. ..... but it is equally true that when an opportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. The court in a case where there has been total non-compliance or substantial non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders declaration to be a conclusive evidence. But when the decision making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from wellknown principles, viz. illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power, it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner...... 18. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Upon receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make such further enquiry as he may think necessary whereupon he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in respect of the land which is the subject matter of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said Report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a Report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. It is now wellsettled in view of a catena of decisions that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason.... 19. However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is true, must precede s proper application of mind on the part of the Government. 19. However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is true, must precede s proper application of mind on the part of the Government. As and when a person aggrieved questions the decision making process, the court in order to satisfy itself as to whether one or more grounds for judicial review exists, may call for the records whereupon such records must be produced..... 20. .... When a rule nisi was issued the State was required to produce the records and file a counter-affidavit. If it did not file any counter-affidavit, it may, subject to just exceptions, be held to have admitted the allegations made in the writ petition.. 6. In Sukumar Khot & ors v. State of Maharashtra & ors reported in 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 328 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act are mandatory. It is the duty of Collector to afford an opportunity of being heard to each objector. 7. Turning back to the present case, on behalf of the respondent no. 2, Land Acquisition Officer Shri Rajendra Puransa Ahiwar has filed affidavit dated 11.6.2008 indicating in para 4 that the procedure as contemplated in Section 5A of the Act was not followed. It appears that the application/objection was heard and submitted to Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 10.3.1999 for publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act. But, the decision as contemplated under Section 5A was neither made nor communicated to the petitioner. 8. Hence, consequent notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.3.1999 could not have been published without following mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act. Thus, acquisition proceedings is vitiated and is liable to be quashed. Right to make objections having regard to Article 330-A of the Constitution of India is held akin to fundamental right and no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law. 9. Section 5A of the Act contemplates the procedure whereby the Land Acquisition Officer or Collector upon receiving objections from the person interested is required to make further inquiry as he thinks necessary whereupon he must submit report to the appropriate Government or Commissioner concerned in respect of the land in question. 9. Section 5A of the Act contemplates the procedure whereby the Land Acquisition Officer or Collector upon receiving objections from the person interested is required to make further inquiry as he thinks necessary whereupon he must submit report to the appropriate Government or Commissioner concerned in respect of the land in question. The report submitted shall contain recommendations on the objections filed by owner of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. The appropriate Government or Commissioner concerned to whom such report with the record is forwarded is required to give a decision in procedural fairness. No man can be deprived of his property without his having an opportunity of being heard. The affidavit-in-reply filed by the Land Acquisition Officer concerned is conspicuously silent. In this regard, in the affidavit of Rajendra Pusansa Ahiwar, there is no mention whatsoever nor justification regarding not following the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Act. 10. The State was obliged to satisfy the court that there was sufficient compliance of imperative procedure required to be followed. We do not find any justification on the part of the State for its conduct of non-production of record or otherwise not indicating the sufficient compliance of the procedure which was required to be followed as contended by the petitioner. Express statutory requirement of procedure was not followed which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, we have no option but to set aside and quash the impugned notification under Section 6 (2) and under Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, we do not intend to impose costs upon the State under the circumstances. 11. In the result, petition succeeds as under : (a) Impugned Notification under Section 6 (2) and notice under Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued by respondent no. 2 Land Acquisition Officer are quashed and set aside. (b) The proceeding stands remitted back to the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer concerned for completing inquiry under Section 5- A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in terms of observations made above. (c) The State/Commissioner concerned shall, upon report of the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations on the objections, proceed in accordance with law. (d) The petition strands disposed of in terms of above order with no order as to costs. (c) The State/Commissioner concerned shall, upon report of the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer and his recommendations on the objections, proceed in accordance with law. (d) The petition strands disposed of in terms of above order with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.