Judgment Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—At joint request, since these petitioners involve identical questions, were finally heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2. Instant petitions have been filed for quashing of- (i) notification dt. 25.7.2006 published in Rajasthan Gazette dt. 28.7.06 issued u/S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("L.A. Act") whereby land measuring 483.84 hectares belonging to various Khatedars including petitioners herein was sought to be acquired by respondents for purposes of development of industrial area in respect of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited (respondent-RIICO) which is a Company, owned & controlled by State Government; and (2) declaration dt. 6.8.07 made u/S. 6 of L.A. Act published in Rajasthan Official Gazette dt. 10.8.07 and in daily news papers - Rajasthan Patrika & Arun Prabha on 9.8.07. Facts, in brief, relevant for deciding disputes raised herein are thus. Respondent (RIICO) had established an Industrial area situated in Bhiwadi (district Alwar) for which, hundreds of applications seeking allotment of industrial area were filed by persons interested in establishing industries in Bhiwadi, which were pending consideration; so taking note of large public interest to get investments in the State and to provide opportunity of employment to people, a proposal was sent by respondent (RIICO) to the State Government on 6.7.2006 for development of industrial area in three revenue villages (1) Khijarpur-Bilahera, (2) Kahrani and (3) Mundana of Tehsil Tijara, district Alwar. Taking note whereof, appropriate Govt. issued preliminary notification dt. 25.7.06 u/S. 4 of the Act which was published in Rajasthan Gazette dt. 28.7.06 while in daily news papers Rajasthan Patrika & Sandhya Jyoti Darpan dt. 30.7.06; and substance of notification was also affixed at conspicuous places in the locality as alleged by respondents on 8.8.06 intending to acquire land measuring 483.84 hectares; which has seriously been disputed by petitioners and would be considered in later part of this judgment. However, by publication of notification u/S. 4 of the Act, objections were invited from persons interested- in pursuance whereof, 141 objectors claiming themselves as persons interested in the land sought to be acquired u/S. 4(1) for public purposes submitted their objections within time stipulated u/S. 5A(1). After more than ten months, notice was published in daily news paper, Alwar Dainik Bhaskar dt. After more than ten months, notice was published in daily news paper, Alwar Dainik Bhaskar dt. 24.6.07 at the instance of Regional Manager RIICO that public hearing in regard to proceedings initiated for acquisition of the land measuring 483.84 hectares would take place on 25.6.07 in the Officer of RIICO, Camp at Bhiwadi and persons/objectors who filed their objections to acquisition proceedings may appear in course of public hearing on 25.6.07 in between 10 AM to 5 PM. 3. However, Land Acquisition Officer ("LAO") in order sheet of 25.6.07 recorded that Objections were submitted by persons interested during public hearing provided u/S. 5A(2) and after holding further inquiry, submitted report dt. 24.7.07 recommending acquisition of proposed land notified u/S. 4(1) of the Act except for some area where temples, mosque & Gurdwara besides large number of houses were situated, which the RIICO, itself declined for acquisition. 4. After considering recommendations made by LAO, State Government made declaration u/S. 6 of the Act on 6.8.07 for the land measuring 470.0067 hectares, which was published in Rajasthan Gazette dt. 10.8.07 and so also in daily news papers-Rajasthan Patrika & Arun Prabha on 9.8.07; whereas declaration was affixed at conspicuous places of locality on 16.8.07. 5. The LAO after issuance of notice to persons interested u/S. 9 of the Act, sent the Award to the State Government for its approval on 13.6.08 and taking note whereof on 10.7.08, State Government approved the Award for compensation made by LAO for Rs. 4,79,49,35,512/- and on the date of its approval by State Government, the LAO issued notification dt. 8.8.07 (Ann. R.2/1 CWP-10648/07). 6. Original record was also placed by respondents for perusal as directed by this Court and before examining submissions made by respective parties, this Court would like to narrate certain facts emerging from the record. (a) Notification u/S. 4(1) dt. 25.7.06 apart from being published in Rajasthan Gazettee dt. 28.7.06 was also published in daily news papers of Rajasthan Patrika & Sandhya Jyoti dt. 30.7.06; and that apart, this notification was affixed at conspicuous places in locality on 8.8.06 as is evident from the record, where signatures of Patwari Halka Santhalka, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kahrani, SDO Tijara, Patwari Shahrod, Asin of village Kahrani, Kamruddin Bilaheri, have been recorded - in support whereof, report of affixation of substance of notification dt. 25.7.06 was sent by Sr. 25.7.06 was sent by Sr. Regional Manager, RIICO, Bhiwadi vide letter No. 4184 dt. 2.9.06 at P. 99/C of LAO's record. (b) After objections were received from persons interested within thirty days as required u/S. 5A(1), for about ten months, no efforts were made by the LAO who drew order sheet for the first time on 23.6.07 that report has to be made u/S. 5a, notice be published for holding public hearing on 25.6.07 and directed Regional Manager, RIICO, Bhiwadi, vide letter dt. 23.6.07 sent by Fax that notice may be published for holding public hearing by LAO on 25.6.07 during camp at Bhiwadi- in pursuance whereof, Regional Manager RIICO, published notice in Alwar Bhaskar of 24.6.07 that the LAO will hold Camp Court at Bhiwadi for public hearing on 25.6.07. (c) On 25.6.77, the LAO recorded order sheet that Khatedars/persons interested were heard with regard to their objections. - <span class=”Hfont”> ^^fgr/kkfj;ksa }kjk izLrqr vk{ksiksa ds lEcU/k esa mudk i{k lquk x;k** - In the order sheet dt. 25.6.07, the LAO also recorded that physical survey was also made with the assistance of concerned Patwari; (d) As per order sheet dt. 12.7.07, written objections of objectors were sent vide letter dt. 13.7.07 to the RIICO Office at Bhiwadi calling for parawise comments in pursuance whereof, Senior Regional Manager RIICO Bhiwadi sent the same vide letter No. 2535/dt. 24.7.07, on which date, itself vide letter No. 662/dt. 24.7.07 that LAO sitting at Head quarter, Jaipur sent its report to the Secretary Industrial for further necessary action. It is relevant to mention that apart from order sheet dt. 25.6.07 where it has been recorded that Khatedars/persons interested were heard, there is no record made available to this Court by which it could be inferred as to who were those objectors/persons interested having appeared before LAO on 25.6.07 date of public hearing while if they appeared what were their objections and how their objections were dealt with by LAO. Neither it is being disclosed from report dt. 24.7.07 nor it is available from the entire record either of LAO or of State Government made available for perusal of this Court. (e) After report dt. 24.7.07 was received in Office of State Government, Deputy Secretary prepared its Note dt. 31.7.07 examined by principal Secretary Industries Department on 3.8.07, which is almost reproduction of report of LAO. 24.7.07 nor it is available from the entire record either of LAO or of State Government made available for perusal of this Court. (e) After report dt. 24.7.07 was received in Office of State Government, Deputy Secretary prepared its Note dt. 31.7.07 examined by principal Secretary Industries Department on 3.8.07, which is almost reproduction of report of LAO. However, Minister of Industries called upon for discussion and thereafter on 6.8.07 final proposal was prepared and placed before Minister of Industries for approval. The Minister of Industries, however, approved but looking to the procedure being adopted in initiating matter for acquisition, put a final Note in order sheet of 6.8.07, "It appears that proper application of mind was not made, the care must be taken in future." On same date 6.8.07, declaration was made u/S. 6 which was published in news papers Rajasthan `Patrika & Arun Prabha dt. 9.8.07 while in Rajasthan Gazette dt. 10.8.07 - substance whereof was also affixed at conspicuous places in locality on 16.8.07. (f) After issuance of notice to persons interested u/S. 9 of the Act, the LAO sent the Award to the State Government for its approval on 13.6.08 and taking note whereof, on 10.7.08 State Government approved the Award and on the date of its approval, the LAO issued notification dt. 8.8.07 (Ann. R. 2/1-CWP-10648/07). 7. I have considered rival contentions of learned counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. 8. Counsel for petitioners submits that Notification dt. 25.7.06 u/S. 4(1) of the Act, was published in official gazette dt. 28.7.06 and so also in two daily newspapers dt. 30.7.06 circulated in locality, but substance of notification was not affixed at convenient places in the said locality where the land proposed to be acquired is situated, which as alleged by respondents, was affixed on 8.8.06 which according to petitioners, was purportedly shown of having affixed on 8.8.06 with intent to make declaration u/S. 6 of the Act within one year from publication of notification u/S. 4(1) of the Act, while as per Counsel for petitioners, in fact substance of notification was never affixed as convenient places in the said locality which was the mandatory requirement U/s. 4(1)- in absence whereof, very action of respondents in making declaration u/S. 6 on 6.8.07 is void and nonest. 9. 9. Submission of Counsel for petitioners, in the opinion of this Court is of no substance for the reasons that respondents in their reply at page 235 has inter-alia averred that substance of notification u/S. 4(1) was affixed at conspicuous/convenient places in the said locality on 8.8.2006, and this fact stands corroborated from original record as referred to (supra). Affixing public notice containing substance of notification at conspicuous places in locality on 8.8.06 is further fortified from the fact that in all 141 objectors submitted their objections which clearly manifests that notification u/S. 4 (1) of the Act was widely circulated. 10. Object behind publication of substance of notification in locality is that persons interested may know that there is a proposed acquisition and if wide publicity is not given to the notification u/S. 4(1), persons interested may not be able to file their objections, if aggrieved to proposed acquisition and in absence of such publication of substance of notification at convenient places in the locality, it would result in denying an opportunity as afforded by S. 5A which confers a valuable right to the objectors whose land is sought to be acquired. 11. It is the declaration which is to be made as per proviso (ii) to S. 6(1) of the Act within one year of date of publication of notification u/S. 4(1), if the State Government is satisfied after considering the report made u/S. 5A of the Act that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company as the case may be. However, later publication of declaration u/S. 6 in news paper or official gazette has got no reference/relevance to the publication as has been considered by Apex Court in SH Brangappa vs. State of Karnataka ( 2002(1) SCC 538 ) ad infra: "7. Declaration under Section 6 is preceded by issuance of a notification under Section 4 which indicates the intention of the Government to inter alia acquire land for a public purpose. Pursuant to the issuance of the same, objections can be filed and after hearing the same, Section 6(1) enables the appropriate authority if it is satisfied, after considering the report made under Section 5A of the Act, that if any particular land is needed for a public purpose, then a declaration is to be made under the signature of an appropriate officer. Where notification under Section 4 is published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984, as in the present case, proviso (ii) requires that such a declaration shall not be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of Section 4 notification. "8. We wish to clarify that the words "publish" and "from the date of publication of the notification" occurring in proviso (ii) to Section 6 (1) refer to the publication of the Section 4 notification and have no reference to the publication of any notification under Section 6. Under Section 6(1), it is only a declaration which is required to be made, the time limit being within one year of the publication of the Section 4 notification. The main purpose for the issuance of a declaration under Section 6 is provided by sub-section (3), namely, that the declaration is conclusive evidence that the land is needed inter alia for a public purpose and after the making of the declaration the appropriate Government may acquire the land in the manner provided by the Act. Sub-section (2) requires the declaration to be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate and in addition thereto the Collector is also required to cause public notice of the substance of the declaration to be given in the convenient places in the said locality." 12. In Urban Improvement Trust vs. Bheru Lal ( 2002(7) SCC 712 = RLW 2003(1) SC 113), Apex Court further observed: "14. As against this, Section 6 (1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, a declaration is to be made to that effect under the signature of the Secretary of such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its order. Further, such declaration is to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, Section 6(1) does not require that such declaration could not be published in the official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Further, such declaration is to be made within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, Section 6(1) does not require that such declaration could not be published in the official gazette after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Time limit of one year is prescribed to a declaration to be made that land is needed for a public purpose under the signature of a Secretary or authorised officer to such Govt." In the light of what has been observed (supra), once substance of notification u/S. 4(1) was affixed at conspicuous/convenient places in the locality on 8.8.06, declaration made on 6.8.07 was much within one year period of limitation as provided u/S. 6(1)(ii) of the Act. 13. Next contention urged by Counsel for petitioners is that as per provisions of Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 ("Rules, 1959"), no allotment can be made to the industries because the land sought to be acquired falls within abadi area of village over which residential houses of petitioners are situated and thus cannot be acquired, is of no substance for the reasons that provisions of Rules, 1959 are applicable for allotment of land which is vested with the Government and u/R. 11A, the land can be allotted to RIICO or Tourism Development Corporation and such land can be allotted by RIICO u/R. 12 in accordance with Rajasthan State Industrial Development (Disposal of land) Rules, 1979. However, in instant case, since dispute is only with regard to acquisition proceedings initiated by respondents under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Question with regard to allotment under Rules, 1959 is devoid of merit. 14. Further submission made by Counsel for petitioners is that the land being acquired for Company, accordingly, proceedings were required to be initiated under Part-VII of the Act while in instant case, acquisition proceedings were initiated under Part II which was in violation of provisions of the Act. 15. Scope of Part II and Part VII of the Act when the land is to be acquired for public purpose or for a company has been considered by Apex Court vide judgment dt. 12.10.07 in Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ( 2008(1) SCC 728 ) and observed ad infra: "38. 15. Scope of Part II and Part VII of the Act when the land is to be acquired for public purpose or for a company has been considered by Apex Court vide judgment dt. 12.10.07 in Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ( 2008(1) SCC 728 ) and observed ad infra: "38. Satisfaction on the part of the State required to be arrived at upon formation of opinion on the basis of materials brought on records for the purpose of Part II of the Act are different from that of Part VII. Once the appropriate Government arrives at decision that the land sought to be acquired is needed for a public purpose the court would not go behind it, as the same may furnish a valid argument for upholding an acquisition under Part II. But when an acquisition is made under Part VII, the conditions precedents therefor as contained in the Companies Rules must be satisfied. On the face of record, if it can be shown that the Government had ignored the mandatory provisions of the Act, the acquisition would have to be struck down. 40. Distinction between acquisition under Part II and Part VII are self-evident. The State was not only obligated to issue a notification clearly stating as to whether the acquisition is for public purpose or for the company. Section 6 categorically states so, as would appear from the second proviso appended thereto. 41. A declaration is to be made either for a public purpose or for a company. It cannot be for both. 44. Expropriatory legislation, as is well-known, must be strictly construed. When the properties of a citizen is being compulsorily acquired by a State in exercise of its power of Eminent Domain, the essential ingredients thereof, namely, existence of a public purpose and payment of compensation are principal requisites therefor. It cannot be for both. 44. Expropriatory legislation, as is well-known, must be strictly construed. When the properties of a citizen is being compulsorily acquired by a State in exercise of its power of Eminent Domain, the essential ingredients thereof, namely, existence of a public purpose and payment of compensation are principal requisites therefor. In the case of acquisition of land for a private company, existence of a public purpose being not a requisite criteria, other statutory requirements call for strict compliance, being imperative in character." In instant case, RIICO being a Government company registered u/S. 617 of the Companies Act and covered by Sec. 3(cc), and "company other than Government Company" has been separately defined in Sec. 3(e) of the Act, and for "Corporation", the land can be acquired for public purposes in terms of Sec. 3(f)(iv), for which proceedings have to be initiated under Part II of the Act and for a "Company" other than Government company covered by Sec. 3(e), procedure under Part VII has to be followed, in the opinion of this Court, RIICO being Government company, acquisition proceedings for a public purpose have rightly been initiated in terms of Part-II of the Act. 16. Next contention on which Counsel for petitioners laid much stress with full rigor is that after objections being raised by petitioner u/S. 5A(1) of the Act, Collector (LAO) was under obligation to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to objectors/persons interested as per mandatory requirement u/S. 5A(2), which in instant case, was a mere formality as is evident from material on record which demonstrates that after notice being published in daily news paper "Alwar Bhaskar" on 24.6.07 that too, at the instance of Regional Manager of respondents-RIICO, who was not duly authorised to call upon persons interested/objectors for public hearing scheduled to take place next day on 25.6.07, where in fact no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them while 141 land owners/persons interested submitted written objections; as such action of respondents in affording opportunity of hearing in the facts of instant case was completely an eye wash and cannot be said to be in true compliance of statutory requirement of opportunity being afforded to objectors/persons interested. 17. In reply & so also written submissions made available during arguments, respondents inter-alia averred that notice was published in news paper dt. 17. In reply & so also written submissions made available during arguments, respondents inter-alia averred that notice was published in news paper dt. 24.6.07 for public hearing on 25.6.07 when opportunity of hearing was afforded by the LAO to objectors/persons interested as required u/S. 5A(2) of the Act and accordingly compliance of mandatory requirement has been made. 18. However, this Court noticed from the record as discussed (supra) that notice was published on 24.6.07 for public hearing on 25.6.07. In the order sheet of 25.6.07, the LAO merely recorded that objectors/Khatedars were heard but there is nothing on record as to who were objectors/Khatedars having remained present/appeared for personal hearing before the LAO in course of public hearing on 25.6.07; and as to whom opportunity of personal hearing was afforded and if at all, objectors have appeared, as to what were their objections raised on 25.6.07 and examined by LAO. It is neither borne out from order sheet drawn by LAO on 25.6.07 nor from the report dt. 24.7.07 having been sent to the State Government nor from other material made available to this Court. 19. It is relevant to mention as borne out from material on record that written objections submitted by objectors/Khatedars were sent to Regional Manager RIICO for its parawise comments on 13.7.07, in response whereof parawise comments were sent by Senior Regional Manager RIICO vide letter No. 2535/dt. 24.7.07 on being dispatched from Bhiwadi to the LAO, RIICO. Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur while on the same day 24.7.07, vide letter No. 662, the LAO sent the report to the State Government chronologically in the same seriatim of parawise comments having been received from RIICO Bhiwadi and the report did not contain any of objections which objectors/persons interested, if raised during public hearing, being allegedly afforded to them. 20. S. 5A of the Act stipulates about requirement of personal hearing to objectors/persons interested, which has been held to be mandatory in character by consistent decisions of Apex Court where it has been declared that S. 5A confers valuable right in favour of land owner with object to proposed acquisition of his property. 21. 20. S. 5A of the Act stipulates about requirement of personal hearing to objectors/persons interested, which has been held to be mandatory in character by consistent decisions of Apex Court where it has been declared that S. 5A confers valuable right in favour of land owner with object to proposed acquisition of his property. 21. In Munshi Singh vs. Union of India ( 1973(2) SCC 337 ) where Apex Court declared that S. 5A embodied a just & wholesome principle that a person, whose property is being or is intended to be acquired, should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading authority concerned to give up acquisition of the property belonging to that person.- "7. Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. We may refer to the observation of this Court in Nandeshwar Prasad & Anr. vs. The State of U.P. & Others ( AIR 1964 SC 1217 ) that the right to file objections under Sec. 5A is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition and that right cannot be taken away as if by a side wind. Sub-section (2) of S. 5A makes it obligatory on the Collector to gave an objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and making further inquiry he is to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on the objections. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections is then final. The declaration under Sec. 6 has to be made after the appropriate Government is satisfied, on a consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Sec. 5A(2). The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A." It was further considered in Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs. Lt. It is only in cases of urgency that special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A." It was further considered in Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi ( 1975 (4) SCC 298 ) where Apex Court declared that the duty to afford an opportunity of hearing to the land owner was mandatory in character, which was further noticed in Shyam Nandah Prasad vs. State of Bihar ( 1993 (4) SCC 255 ) while observing ad infra: "...That the compliance of provisions of Section 5-A is mandatory, is beyond dispute. See in this connection, Shri Mandir Sitaramji vs. Ltd. Governor of Delhi ( 1975 (4) SCC 298 ) and Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad ( 1976(3) SCC 719 ). 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 authority 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 5A is kept applicable, there is no cause to treat its provisions lightly or casually." Recently, significance of inquiry u//S. 5a and a hearing to objectors was examined in Union of India vs. Mukesh Hans ( 2004(8) SCC 14 ), where Apex Court declared that an inquiry u/S. 5A was not an empty formality and it is a substantive right of a person whose land is sought to be acquired. 22. Similar view was expressed in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai ( 2005 (7) SCC 627 = RLW 2005(4) SC 2407) where Apex Court reaffirmed position of law laid down in earlier decisions (supra) observing ad infra: "7. It is not in dispute that Section 5A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai ( 2005 (7) SCC 627 = RLW 2005(4) SC 2407) where Apex Court reaffirmed position of law laid down in earlier decisions (supra) observing ad infra: "7. It is not in dispute that Section 5A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid." "10. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regards the public purpose as also suitability there of must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5A of the Act confers a valuable right contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right." In the light of pronouncements (supra), there is no gainsaid that violation of S.5A which is mandatory in character has the effect of vitiating recommendations made by Collector (LAO) and consequential declaration made by Government. 23. However, it is true that only in such cases where the land owner has filed objections to proposed acquisition, such objectors are entitled for personal hearing. In cases where objections to proposed acquisition have not been filed, the duty to hear such owners/Khatedars of the land proposed to be acquired does not arise. 24. In instant case, it is not the case of respondents that petitioners have not submitted their written objections before the LAO within stipulated period of thirty days u/S. 5A(1) of the Act. Significance of inquiry u/S. 5A would stand considerably diluted in case requisition of a personal hearing to the land owners, if held to be a mere formality. 25. In instant case, it is not the case of respondents that petitioners have not submitted their written objections before the LAO within stipulated period of thirty days u/S. 5A(1) of the Act. Significance of inquiry u/S. 5A would stand considerably diluted in case requisition of a personal hearing to the land owners, if held to be a mere formality. 25. Thus, right to file objections u/S. 5A is a substantial right when person's property is being threatened with acquisition and that right cannot be taken away as if by a side wind; as such, S. 5A(2) makes it obligatory upon Collector to give an objector a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In instant case, notice was published on 24.6.07 by which objectors were called upon by Senior Regional Manager to appear during public hearing on 25.6.07. Petitioners have made categorical statement that no personal hearing was afforded, despite so-called opportunity being made available either to appear in person or authorised some one on his behalf or to engage pleader under statutory provisions of S. 5A(2), and even if notice of public hearing to take place on 25.6.07, as published on 24.6.07 for the first time after ten months of publication of notification u/S. 4(1) is taken on its face value, there was no time left to engage pleader or to authorised person on behalf of objector who may put defence of objectors to persuade the authority to drop proceedings for acquisition and that apart, as observed (supra), from the records made available for perusal in course of arguments and even from order sheets drawn by LAO on 25.6.07, no inference can be drawn of reasonable opportunity of hearing at all being afforded to objectors, while there were 141 objectors having raising their different grievances/objections in writing as against proposed acquisition, they were entitled for reasonable opportunity of hearing. 26. In the opinion of this Court, opportunity of hearing as alleged by respondents provided u/S. 5A(2) of the Act to objectors/petitioners was an empty formality and the procedure adopted by respondents in affording opportunity of hearing in the facts of instant case was complete farce and cannot be said to be in its true spirit or S. 5A(2) of the Act as a result whereof, their valuable right of opportunity of hearing has been seriously jeopardized. 27. 27. There may be a question which respondents may raise as to what prejudice has been caused to objectors/persons interested in case of denial of effective opportunity of hearing u/S. 5A(2) of the Act; suffice it to say that there is statutory requirement u/S. 5A(2) of the Act which mandates personal hearing to land owner/objectors/persons interested who may appear in person or authorise a person on his behalf or by pleader and once opportunity of hearing is made mandatory by statutory provisions- denial of effective hearing would in itself result in prejudice requiring no proof of prejudice by objectors for the Court to interfere. A series of decisions of Apex Court as regards significance of enquiry u/S. 5A and consequence of its violation, in the opinion of this Court, leaves no room to hold that mandatory nature of the said provision notwithstanding violation whereof would remain inconsequential unless objectors may be able to demonstrate prejudice. Position may be different, if statute is silent on the subject and in that eventuality, non-observance of principles of natural justice may have given-rise to the question whether any prejudice had been caused by any such failure of the authority but it is not in the realm of uncodified general principles of natural justice. However, contrarily dealing with a situation whether the Parliament has enacted a statutory provision couched in mandatory language making it essential for the Collector (LAO) to hear the objectors before he submits his report u/S. 5A, as noticed (supra), as held by Apex Court, requirement of hearing in any manner u/S. 5A be akin to constitutional requirement; in view whereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that denial of effective hearing under statute, itself causes prejudice to the objectors, which is not required to be examined by this Court. 28. As regards submission made by Government Counsel that a sum of Rs. 28. As regards submission made by Government Counsel that a sum of Rs. Four hundred thirteen Crores have already been paid to khatedars whose land sought to be acquired under notifications impugned; inasmuch as possession of 345 hectares out of total land to be acquired of 483.84 hectares under notifications impugned has already been taken and that apart, the Government has also entered into an MOU on 19.8.08 with the company which has agreed to make investment of sum of rupees One thousand Crores which would provide employment to thousand of persons and the RIICO has agreed to allot 140 hectares to the respective Companies and only because of pendente proceedings possession whereof has not been handed over to investor-Companies, as such interference if made in present proceedings would certainly cause great prejudice to respondents. 29. Submission made by respondents' Counsel in the opinion of this Court is of no substance for the reason that if valuable right which confers in favour of person whose land is sought to be acquired, which respondents were under obligation to follow & comply with mandatory requirement under the Act in its true spirit, if denied to him, which is the only valuable right of hearing to objectors, State Government in exercise of its power of eminent domain cannot be permitted to acquire land without due compliance of statutory requirement being mandatory in character-as a result of denial whereof, action on the part of respondents is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and an argument made on behalf of State Government in no manner can be countenanced under the garb of eminent domain where there is a total non-compliance of mandatory requirement u/S. 5A(2) of the Act, thereby valuable right of persons whose land is sought to be acquired has jeopardized and this Court cannot fold its hands in any manner to deny relief to petitioners before this Court. 30. Before parting with order, I would like to observe that there are few intervenor who have filed their applications with the grievance that they are not questioning acquisition proceedings, yet their compensation has not been paid to them (Kishanlal intervenor in CWP-10648/07, CWP-7103/07 & CWP-7652/07) and at the same time, there are certain petitioners (CWP-11411/98 filed by Yaqoob Khan, CWP-9931/08 filed by Smt. Asmina, CWP-14157/08 filed by Noor Mohd. & Others claiming only compensation having been withheld by respondents and few may have been left out whose land has also been acquired vide notifications impugned, but have not challenged acquisition proceedings; their main grievance is that their compensation in lieu of acquisition impugned has not been paid by respondents. 31. In this regard, this Court would like to observe that competent authority may consider applications of such intervenor/petitioners claiming only compensation in the light of the provisions under Land Acquisition Act and disburse the amount to such persons whose land stands acquired vide notifications in accordance with law against whom acquisition proceedings have attained finality as they have not assailed before any Court and are not aggrieved whereof. 32. In view of what has been observed (supra) for non-compliance of provisions contained in S. 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, these writ petitions (except CWP-11411/07, 9931/08 & 7652/07 seeking compensation only) succeeds and are hereby allowed; and declaration dt. 6.8.07 u/S. 6 of the Act qua petitioners who are aggrieved thereby, are hereby quashed & set aside. However, respondents will be at liberty to proceed further pursuant to notification dt. 25.7.06, u/S. 4 after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners in terms of S. 5A (2) of the Act in accordance with law. 33. CWP-11411/07, 9931/08 & 7652/07 along with applications of intervenors seeking compensation only stand disposed of in the light of observations (supra). No costs.