ORDER The petitioner is the owner of Acs.2.23 cents of land in Survey No.95-1A of Jagannadhapuram Village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. The District Collector, Vizianagaram, respondent No.2 herein, issued notification, dated 25-05-2006, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') proposing to acquire the land referred to above, for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01-06-2006. 2. The petitioner filed W.P.No.16657 of 2006 challenging the invocation of urgency clause. The writ petition was disposed of on 09-08-2006 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was set aside. Specific direction was issued to the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, respondent No.3 herein, issued notice, dated 16-10-2006, inviting objections under Section 5-A of the Act The petitioner states that when he presented the objections, respondent No.3 refused to receive the same and ultimately, they were sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due received by respondent No.3 on 23-10-2006. His grievance is that without considering the objections raised by him, respondent No.2 published declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on 24-12-2006. Five days thereafter, i.e. on 29-12-2006, respondent No.3 issued a memo treating that the petitioner has no objections to offer. 4. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed, narrating the events ever since the proposals were mooted for acquisition of the land. An attempt is made to justify every step taken by them. 5. Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuana Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 6. The experience of this Court is that, in the manner of acquisition of the land for providing house sites to the poor, it is either a case of deep slumber or an action in full swing on the part of the Government. For years, if not, decades together, nobody even thinks of providing house sites. Once a decision is taken, the schemes are proceeded with such a speed that the crashing is inevitable. 7. As though the necessity to provide house sites to the weaker sections has arisen overnight, notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were issued simultaneously by invoking urgency clause. Once a decision is taken, the schemes are proceeded with such a speed that the crashing is inevitable. 7. As though the necessity to provide house sites to the weaker sections has arisen overnight, notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were issued simultaneously by invoking urgency clause. The observations made by this Court that the only remedy available to an affected citizen to submit a representation under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be dispensed with as a matter of routine has only fallen to deaf ears. The petitioner had approached this court by filing W.P.No.16657 of 2006. The writ petition was disposed of and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was set aside. A direction was issued to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 8. Respondent No.3 was appointed as Land Acquisition Officer. It is not known whether he did it himself or on the directions issued by respondent No.2, but he issued a notice, dated 16-10-2006, inviting objections. The petitioner had to submit objections through registered post on the ground that respondent No.3 refused to receive them in person. It is doubtful as to whether respondent No.3 has the power to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Even assuming that he is competent, the maximum that he could have done was to submit a report to respondent No.2 after considering the objections raised by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 could have taken further steps only after forming an opinion on the basis of the report received by him and the objections. 9. Lack of coordination between respondent Nos.2 and 3 is clearly demonstrated in the instant case. Without waiting for the report of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 proceeded to publish declaration under Section 6 of the Act in a local daily on 24-12-2006. The fact that the report of respondent No.3 was not available is evident from the very date of the report of respondent No.3, which is, dated 29-12-2006. It is through this report that respondent No.3 took the view that the petitioner has responded to his notice only with a request to grant 15 days time and that he has formed an opinion to the effect that the petitioner has no objection to the proposed acquisition. It is through this report that respondent No.3 took the view that the petitioner has responded to his notice only with a request to grant 15 days time and that he has formed an opinion to the effect that the petitioner has no objection to the proposed acquisition. Therefore, it is clearly evident that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published before the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and respondent No.3 has reduced the enquiry under Section 5-A to an empty formality. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act published on 24-12-2006 is set aside. In case the respondents propose to proceed with the acquisition, they shall be under obligation to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.