Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus praying for an issuance of an order by this Court in calling for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No.B2/14594/A/05 dated 20.12.2005 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. Also, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction by this Court to the first respondent/Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur to receive and register the document in regard to property of S.No.24/5 B Naligabetta Agraharam, Chenur Post, Krishnagiri District. 2. The petitioner along with Veeramani purchased the property in S.No.24/5 B Naligabetta Agraharam, Chenur Post, Krishnagiri District from one Kamalammal on 07.06.1989. After purchasing the property, he and the said Veeramani obtained loan from financial institutions and established an industry which manufactures high pressure pipe fittings. 3. It is the stand of the petitioner that suddenly the Tamil Nadu State Government issued a notice as per Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 5A, enquiry notice was issued on 13.10.1991. The objections were also filed and the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's case. Inasmuch as the State Government failed to comply with the ingredients of Rule 3-B of the Act, he along with Veeramani projected W.P.No.208 of 1993 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 17.07.2000, quashed the land acquisition proceedings. 4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that in W.P.No.208 of 1993 filed by the petitioner and Veeramani, this Court on 17.07.2000 has quashed the land acquisition proceedings and allowed the writ petition. The said order in W.P.No.208 of 1993 dated 17.07.2000 has become final, conclusive and binds the interse parties. Also that as on date, no appeal has been preferred by the aggrieved as against the order dated 17.07.2000 passed in W.P.No.208 of 1993. 5. A cursory perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 17.07.2000 in W.P.No.208 of 1993 shows that the Court has inter-alia observed as hereunder: In the counter filed by the respondents, it has been contended that the petitioners have filed their objections belatedly. It is not clear from the counter whether the objections filed by the petitioners have been forwarded to the requisitioning body or not. It is not clear from the counter whether the objections filed by the petitioners have been forwarded to the requisitioning body or not. It is only stated that the notice has been issued to the petitioner and enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act has been conducted. In para 5 of the counter, it has been stated that though the objection petition of the petitioners has been received in the office belatedly i.e., only on 29.10.1991. The objections have been considered at the time of 5A enquiry held on 29.10.1991 in the presence of the representative from the requisition body i.e., Surveyor, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur. As the land lies in the middle of the scheme area, the objections of the petitioners could not be considered. From the above statement, it can be found that the respondents have failed to consider the objections. The contentions of the respondents are negatived by this Court in a number of decisions one such being reported in Lakshmanan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to the Government Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Chennai and another (2000 CTC 381). Under the above circumstances as held by this Court on the objections filed by the petitioner the respondents have to wait for the period of 30 days and act upon the same. It is very clear from the counter filed by the respondents that they have not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 3-B and they have not considered the objections filed by the petitioners herein. It is also not clear as to whether the possession has been taken from the petitioners. Ultimately, for non compliance of Rule 3-B as well as non consideration of the observation, quashed the land acquisition proceedings. 6. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the ingredients of Sec.5(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ought not to be treated either casually or lightly Sec.5(A) of the Act requires an opportunity of personal hearing shall be given to the objector. 7. Sec.5(A) of the Act contemplates that an opportunity of hearing/being heard ought to be given to the objector and after making further enquiry a report can be made. 8. 7. Sec.5(A) of the Act contemplates that an opportunity of hearing/being heard ought to be given to the objector and after making further enquiry a report can be made. 8. As per the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules, the obligation to forward the objections to the acquiring department and the views of the acquiring department to the land owners is mandatory, as opined by this Court. 9. When the remarks of the requisitioning body is not made available to the owner/claimant whose lands were acquired at the time of enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act, it is to be held that the requirements of 3(b) of Land Acquisition Rules have not been complied with. Therefore, the enquiry under Section 5(A) is vitiated in Law. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that in the impugned notice dated 20.12.2005 of the second respondent, the second respondent has called upon the First Respondent/Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hosur not to deal with certain lands in Naligabetta Agraharam, Chenur Post, Krishnagiri District as there is a proposal of land acquisition in the said land in future. The petitioner and Veeramani's land is also included in the land stated in the impugned notice dated 20.12.2005. Therefore, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent is declining to register the document. When the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.208 of 1993 dated 17.07.2000 which has become final, conclusive and as a consequent effect, the land acquisition proceedings have been quashed by this Court, then the issuance of proceedings by the second respondent to the first respondent in No.B2/14594/A/05 dated 20.12.2005 to the effect that in this Scheme area for future Housing Facility Scheme, lands have been selected, awards have been passed and land costs remitted and the land acquisitions are proceedings are pending and therefore, the survey number mentioned in the enclosed list are not dealt with for registration in connected with sale or for other use, are clearly an illegal and incompetent one in the eye of Law. Therefore, this Court quashes the proceedings of the second respondent in No.B2/14594/A/05 dated 20.12.2005 forwarded to the First Respondent/Sub-Registrar, Hosur and also, directs the first respondent to receive and register the document in regard to property in S.No.24/5 B Naligabetta Agraharam, Chenur Post, Krishnagiri District in accordance with law (if there is no other impediment to receive and register the same as per Law). Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Resultantly, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. There shall be no order as to costs.