Judgment This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare that the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in pursuance of notification, dated 30.06.2006, issued by respondent No.1 under Section 4(1) of the Act is vitiated by procedural illegality. The petitioners own an extent of Acs.4.00 of land in Survey No.125/1 and 2A of Peddevam Village, Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. Notification, dated 30.06.2006, was issued by respondent No.1 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the said land for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the Village. The said notification was published in the District Gazette on 03.07.2006. As the land comprises coconut garden, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16894 of 2006, questioning the said notification. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by order, dated 14.08.2006, observing that the petitioners can raise objections relating to suitability or otherwise of the land for providing house sites in the enquiry to be held under Section 5-A of the Act. It appears that an enquiry was held for 31.07.2006 and as the petitioners failed to attend enquiry on that date, it was construed that they have no objection for acquiring the land and accordingly, respondent No.2 has issued endorsement, dated 27.08.2006. However, it is not in dispute that on 21.08.2006, the petitioners have filed their objections, which were not considered by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 08.09.2006. The present writ petition is filed questioning the said declaration, apart from raising the question of validity of the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari District, respondent No.3 herein, it is inter alia stated that the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the District Gazette was made on 03.07.2006, paper publications were made on 30.09.2006 (Eluru Times daily newspaper) and on 07.07.2006 (The Hindu daily newspaper), and substance in the locality on 07.07.2006 (at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that in the counter affidavit, the date of publication of notification in Eluru Times daily newspaper was wrongly mentioned as 30.09.2006, instead of 04.07.2006). It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as the petitioners failed to attend the enquiry on 31.07.2006 and submitted their objections on 21.08.2006 i.e., beyond the time permitted, those objections were not taken into consideration and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette, Newspapers and substance in the locality as required under the provisions of the Act on 30.09.2006. At the hearing, Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited this Court’s attention to the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, wherein it is stated that the land is required for Tallapudi Lift Irrigation Scheme. He has submitted that while the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act has mentioned the purpose of acquisition as for providing house sites to the weaker sections, in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, a different purpose is shown. Even though in the counter affidavit, it is claimed that the purpose mentioned in the declaration was a mistake and that an errata was issued, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that no such errata was issued. In my opinion, the purpose mentioned under Section 6 of the Act being at variance with the purpose for which the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act cannot be sustained. This material contradiction between the notification and the declaration with respect to the purpose shows the total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act can be issued where the appropriate Government or the District Collector is satisfied that any particular land is needed for the public purpose for which it was required. When this requirement of satisfaction presupposes proper application of mind, the very plea of the respondents that the purpose mentioned in the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act is a mistake itself would establish that there was no proper satisfaction on the part of the District Collector regarding the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. In the premises as above, the impugned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. In the premises as above, the impugned declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. As admittedly, the objections filed by the petitioners on 21.08.2006 were received by the office of respondent No.2, the latter is directed to consider those objections and take a decision afresh, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. Subject to the above directions and observations, the writ petition is allowed. Before parting with this case, it requires to be observed that the photographs furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the hearing would show that the proposed land is full of coconut trees. In the opinion of this Court, it is not desirable to acquire such land for the purpose of providing house sites unless no other suitable land in the Village is available. Respondent No.2 shall keep this in mind while disposing of the objections of the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26648 of 2006 and W.V.M.P.No.2512 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous.