Judgment :- (C. NAGAPPAN, J.) 1. Both the writ appeals are preferred against the Common Order dated 28.7.1999 passed by the learned single Judge. W.A.No.180 of 2000 is directed against the Order passed in W.P.No.12283 of 1991. W.A.No.181 of 2000 is directed against the Order made in W.P.No.12286 of 1991. Both the appeals are heard together and common judgment is rendered. 2. The property of an extent of 1.31.0 H in R.S.No.29/2 in Semmandalam village is the ancestral property of the petitioner Rajangam in W.P.No.12283 of 1991 and his brothers. The property of an extent of one acre 13 cents in R.S.No.29/4 A is the ancestral property of the petitioner Sekar in W.P.No.12286 of 1991 and his brothers. The first respondent sought to acquire both the lands for the purpose of Neighbourhood scheme for Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made in G.O.Ms.No.379, Housing and Urban Development, dated 19.4.1990, was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 9.5.1990. It was also published in Tamil Dailies Thina Thoothu and Makkal Kural on 20.5.1990. The publication in the locality was made on 26.6.1990. The second respondent issued notice dated 13.7.1990 under Rule 3 calling upon the petitioners to submit their objections and the notices were served on both the petitioners on 14.7.1990. Both the petitioners have claimed that they have submitted their objections within time. The enquiry was held on 21.8.1990 and both the petitioners attended the enquiry and gave their objections. The objections were communicated to the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and his remarks were obtained. The second respondent, namely, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Housing Scheme, Cuddalore passed orders over-ruling the objections in his proceedings in A.245/85 dated 20.10.1990 and the said orders were served on the petitioners. The Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was approved by the Government in G.O.943, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 6.6.1991, and it was published in the Government Gazette, dated 17.6.1991; in Tamil dailies Kumari Murasu and Dhinathoothu, dated 21.6.1991, and local publication was made on 21.6.1991. At that stage, the petitioners have filed the writ petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the said S.4(1) Notification and S.6 Declaration of the Act. At that stage, the petitioners have filed the writ petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the said S.4(1) Notification and S.6 Declaration of the Act. The learned single Judge held that the contention of the petitioners that their objections were not properly considered by the Authorities, cannot be accepted and the petitioners were heard in person; their statements were recorded and the enquiry conducted was proper and the acquisition proceedings are valid and legal and dismissed the writ petitions by the common order. Challenging the same, the present writ appeals have been preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly raises the following contentions: (1) The second respondent forwarded the objections of the petitioners to the requisitioning body, namely, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and obtained remarks, but, has failed to furnish a copy of the remarks to the petitioners and has not conducted any further enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A(2) of the Act and hence, the proceedings are vitiated; and (2) The second respondent without forwarding the proceedings of the enquiry along with his Report to the Government, namely, the first respondent, arrogated to himself the power of determination which vests only with the Government under S.5-A(2) of the Act and the proceedings are vitiated. In support of the first contention, the learned counsel for the appellants relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in (1) SHARP TOOLS AND OTHERS v.. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS [ 2006 (4) CTC 785 ] and (2) Unreported decision of the learned single Judge dated 9.8.1999 made in W.P.No.16355 of 1991; NEELAMBAL v.. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ANOTHER. In support of the second contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. v.. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI & OTHERS [2006-2-L.W.74]. 4. We heard the learned Special Government Pleader on the above said submission. 5. It is averred by the petitioners in their affidavits that the second respondent issued notice dated 13.7.1990 under Rule 3 and they received the same on 14.7.1990 and have submitted their objections within time and the same were received by the second respondent. 4. We heard the learned Special Government Pleader on the above said submission. 5. It is averred by the petitioners in their affidavits that the second respondent issued notice dated 13.7.1990 under Rule 3 and they received the same on 14.7.1990 and have submitted their objections within time and the same were received by the second respondent. It is further stated by them that they attended the enquiry on 21.8.1990 and their objections were recorded. In the common counter affidavit, the second respondent has stated that no objection was received from the petitioners during the period of 30 days from the date of publication of S.4(1) Notification, i.e., 26.6.1990, but however, both the petitioners appeared for the enquiry on 21.8.1990 and presented their petitions objecting to the acquisition. The counter further proceeds to narrate the objections made by them and it is further stated that the said objections were communicated to the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and his remarks were obtained. 6. Admittedly, the said remarks obtained from the requisitioning body were not communicated to the petitioners and there was no further enquiry conducted by the second respondent after receipt of the remarks. The Full Bench, in the decision in SHARP TOOLSs case, referred to supra, has held that the wordings "after hearing all objections" in Section 5-A(2) would include both the objections given within 30 days and also made after 30 days either in writing or oral at the time of enquiry and it is always advisable that the Collector must make such further enquiry, however, discretion is given to the Collector for the said purpose. In fact, challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of adjoining lands in R.S.Nos.28/1 and 28/2 covered by the same notification, one of the land owners Neelambal filed writ petition, cited supra, and the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by holding that the objection made at the time of enquiry is also relevant and the remarks of the requisitioning body offered on the objections, ought to have been forwarded to the land owner and further enquiry could have been conducted in the matter and the Authorities failed to comply with Rule 3(b) of the Rules and hence, the proceedings are vitiated. In the present case, the petitioners have raised the above grounds in the writ petitions, but the learned single Judge has failed to advert to the same. In the present case, the petitioners have raised the above grounds in the writ petitions, but the learned single Judge has failed to advert to the same. Though it is not obligatory on the part of the second respondent to conduct further enquiry pursuant to the receipt of the remarks from the requisitioning body, in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that such an enquiry could have been conducted. Following the decisions, we hold that the first contention is sustainable. 7. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, S.5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired and it contains two parts, namely, hearing of objections by the Collector and the decision of the Government on the objections, considering the Collectors Report and both the parts must be strictly complied with. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 5-A of the Act in the decision in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATIONs case, referred to supra, and has laid down as follows: "21. In view of the fact that the action required to be taken by the State Government is distinct and different from the action required to be taken by the Collector:....... The job of the Collector in terms of Section 5-A would be over once he submits his report. The Land Acquisition Collector would not know the contents of the proceedings before the State and, therefore, he would be incompetent to affirm an affidavit on its behalf. 22. Furthermore, the State is required to apply its mind not only on the objections filed by the owner of the land but also on the Report which is submitted by the Collector upon making other and further enquiries therefor as also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. The State Government may further inquire into the matter, if any case is made out therefore, for arriving at its own satisfaction that it is necessary to deprive a citizen of his right to property." In the present case, a common counter affidavit was filed in both the writ petitions. In para 3 of the common counter it is stated thus - "..... The objections were communicated to the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and his remarks were obtained. In para 3 of the common counter it is stated thus - "..... The objections were communicated to the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and his remarks were obtained. Since all the objections raised by the petitioners were found not valid, they were overruled and orders were passed on the 5A enquiry in special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Cuddalore, Office proceedings A. 245/85 dated 20.10.90. The said orders were served on the petitioners under proper acknowledgement." 8. The learned counsel for the appellants produces the original proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.10.1990 served on the petitioners for perusal. In the said proceedings, the second respondent after extracting the objections in verbatim, individually considered them on merits and has over-ruled them as not valid. There has been substantial non-compliance of the provision of S.5-A(2) of the Act. Instead of making Report to the Government containing his recommendations on the objections of the petitioners together with the Record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the Government, the second respondent arrogated to himself the power of determination which vests only with the Government under Section 5-A(2) of the Act. Hence, the proceedings are vitiated as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. Though the said contention was not raised before the learned single Judge, in view of the substantial non-compliance of the provision of S.5-A(2) of the Act, this Court cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant reliefs to the appellants. The second contention deserves acceptance and the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 9. For the above reasons, the writ appeals are allowed and the impugned common order is set aside and both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP Nos.1628 & 1629 of 2000 are closed.