Judgment At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notification Ref.No.G2/2535/2006, dated 22-8-2006 issued by respondent No.1 whereunder the respondents proposed to acquire an extent of Ac.1-33 cents of wet land in Sy.No.172/1 of Mangiturthi Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of allotment of house sites for construction of houses under Indiramma scheme. Challenge to the impugned notification is mainly mounted on the ground that the notification is issued by the Collector and not by the District Collector and therefore the same is without jurisdiction. Though the counter-affidavit has not clarified this position, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the description “Collector, East Godavari District” itself shows that Sri M.Subrahmanyam, in whose name the notification was issued was the District Collector of East Godavari District and the phrase ‘District’ is suffixed in stead of pre-fixing the same to the phrase ‘Collector’. I find force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader. It is quite obvious that while describing the District Collector, the notification has shown him as “Collector, East Godavari District” in stead of repeating the word ‘District’ twice. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. However, there is one more aspect to be considered in this case. In response to the public notice issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), the petitioner submitted his objections on 14-9-2006. The decision on the objections was not communicated to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit it is inter alia stated that after examining the petitioner’s objections, respondent No.1 rejected the same and approved the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act which was published in the District Gazette and newspapers on 31-10-2006, 5-11-2006 and 6-11-2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counter affidavit is silent on communication of the order of respondent No.1 rejecting the petitioner’s objections. The learned Government Pleader is unable to state whether the decision on the objections was communicated to the petitioner. Therefore it is reasonable to presume that the said decision was not communicated to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader is unable to state whether the decision on the objections was communicated to the petitioner. Therefore it is reasonable to presume that the said decision was not communicated to the petitioner. Even though there is no specific provision under the Act envisaging communication of the decision on the objections filed by the persons interested in the land under acquisition, the very purpose of the statute providing for an opportunity of filing objections by the land owners would be frustrated if the decision on the objections is not communicated to the objectors. If the decision on the objections is not communicated, the objectors would lose valuable opportunity of challenging the decision of the Collector. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in not communicating the decision to the petitioner vitiates the decision making process and the consequential act of issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to issue a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner for enquiry to be held under Section 5-A of the Act, pass an appropriate order and communicate the decision to the petitioner before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition. As a sequel, interim order dated 8-11-2006 in WPMP No.24750/2006 is vacated and WPMP No.24750/2006 and WVMP No.33/2007 are disposed of accordingly.