Judgment : “To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act under Ref.B2/663/08, dated 22.8.2008 and consequential overruling the objections of the petitioners vide Ref.B2/663/08, dated 18.5.2009, and issuance of draft declaration in Ref.B2/663/08, dated 18.8.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, vitiated by non-application of mind and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same.” 2. The case of the petitioners, as per the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is as under. 3. The petitioners are the owners of small extents of lands in Sy.Nos.330, 330, 335/2, 116/9a, 345/2, 317/1b, 206/3b, 207/2b and 205/5b of S.Annavaram village, Tuni mandal, East Godavari District. The 1st respondent-Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar Project, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District issued a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) vide Ref.No.D2/63/2008 dated 22.8.2008 proposing to acquire a total extent of Ac.39-08 cents including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of excavation of distributory to main canal under Pushkar Lift Irrigation Scheme. By virtue of the said notification, enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with by invoking the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The petitioners herein along with certain other land owners filed Writ Petition No.22975 of 2008 before this Court and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 21.10.2008 directing the 1st respondent herein to conduct enquiry under Section 5 of the Act, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court, the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Pushkar Lift Irrigation Scheme, Peddapuram, East Godavari District issued notices to the petitioners herein and also other land owners to appear before him for enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In response to the said notices, the petitioners submitted their written objections, opposing the acquisition and requested for providing personal hearing. The 2nd respondent, without providing any opportunity or personal hearing and without considering the objections raised by the petitioners herein, submitted his remarks to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent without application of mind mechanically rejected the application submitted by the petitioners and directed the 2nd respondent to submit the draft declaration for approval. The 2nd respondent, without providing any opportunity or personal hearing and without considering the objections raised by the petitioners herein, submitted his remarks to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent without application of mind mechanically rejected the application submitted by the petitioners and directed the 2nd respondent to submit the draft declaration for approval. The draft declaration was accordingly published on 21.1.2009 under Section 6 of the Act. Assailing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 22.8.2008 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 18.5.2009, over-ruling the objections of the petitioners and the declaration dated 18.8.2009 issued under Section 6 of the Act, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. This Court, initially on 6.10.2009 granted interim order of status quo and after extending the said order from time to time, made the said order absolute on 26.4.2010. 5. A counter affidavit, deposed by the 2nd respondent, is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 herein, stating that the land owners attended 5A enquiry on 22.11.2008 and filed representation, requesting to postpone the hearing to 20.12.2008 and considering the said request, enquiry was postponed to 20.12.2008 and on which date, the Deputy Executive Engineer from the requisition department also attended and that the petitioners filed their objections in writing on 20.12.2008 and the petitioners were heard personally and their counsel was also heard and that all the objections were enquired in their presence and that the objections raised by the petitioners were referred to the requisition department and after examining the objections raised by the petitioners herein with regard to the remarks of the requisition department, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 18.5.2009, rejecting the objections of the petitioners and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also approved and was published in East Godavari District on 18.8.2009, Andhra Prabha and Janaspandana, daily newspapers and substance of the same was also notified in the locality. It is further stated that since there is scrupulous adherence to the provisions of the Act, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents and perused the material available on record. 7. It is further stated that since there is scrupulous adherence to the provisions of the Act, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents and perused the material available on record. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on the ground that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioners while considering the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act. It is further contended that number of objections were raised before the respondents and the respondents failed to consider any one of them from proper perspective except pleading inevitability for acquiring the land for public purpose. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that it is incumbent on the part of the respondent authorities to record valid and cogent reasons on all the objections raised by the petitioners herein and that in the instant case, the respondent authorities did not undertake such an exercise. The learned counsel further contends the hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Act must be an effective one and not a mere formality and there must be proper application of mind with regard to public purpose by considering the relevant factors as held by this Court in the case of Mudragada Satyanarayanaand 3 others vs. State of A.P., rep. by the District Collector, Kakinada (W.A.No.171 of 2007). It is further contended that all the petitioners are small farmers and eking out their livelihood by doing agricultural operations in their respective lands and if the proposed acquisition is permitted, the petitioners herein will be deprived of their livelihood. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned proceedings are also contrary to the rules framed under the Act, which stipulates invitation of remarks from the requisition department. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned proceedings are also contrary to the rules framed under the Act, which stipulates invitation of remarks from the requisition department. 8. Contending in the manner indicated supra, the learned counsel for petitioner, to bolster his submissions and contentions, places reliance on the judgments in SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( (2013) 1 SCC 403 ), SYED HUSSAIN AND OTHERS v. THE JOINT SECRETARY, P.W.D. (R&B) GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS (1994(2) ALT 48 (DB)), M.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO AND ANOTHER v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( 2010(5) ALD 611 ), UPPALAPATI BRAHMAMMA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ( 2011(5) ALD 447 )and RADHY SHYAM (DEAD) THROUGH L.Rs AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( 2011(5) SCC 553 ). 9. Per contra, it is vehemently contended by the learned Government Pleader that there are absolutely no statutory infirmities in the impugned proceedings and the authorities are proceeding strictly adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Act. 10. The provisions of law, which are germane and relevant for the purpose of resolving the controversy in the present Writ Petition are Sections 5A and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which read as under: “Section 5A - Objections : Hearing of objections (1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, Sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. (2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the Appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act. 17. Special powers in cases of urgency.- (1) In cases of urgency, whenever the Appropriate Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9, sub-section (1), take possession of any waste or arable land needed for a public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (2) Whenever, owing to any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, it becomes necessary for any Railway administration to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the maintenance of their traffic or for the purpose of making thereon a river-side or that station, or of providing convenient connection with or access to any such station, 2 [or the appropriate Government considers it necessary to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the purpose of maintaining any structure or system pertaining to irrigation, water supply, drainage, road communication or electricity,] the Collector may, immediately after the publication of the notice mentioned in sub-section (1) and with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government, enter upon and take possession of such land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of any building or part of a building under this sub-section without giving to the occupier thereof at least forty-eight hours' notice of his intention so to do, or such longer notice as may be reasonably sufficient to enable such occupier to remove his movable property from such building without unnecessary inconvenience. (3) In every case under either of the preceding sub-sections the Collector shall at the time of taking possession offer to the persons interested, compensation for the standing crops and trees (if any) on such land and for any other damage sustained by them caused by such sudden dispossession and not excepted in section 24; and, in case such offer is not accepted, the value of such crops and trees and the amount of such other damage shall be allowed for in awarding compensation for the land under the provisions herein contained. (3A) Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3),-- (a) tender payment of eighty per centum of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the persons interested entitled thereto, and (b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in section 31, sub-section (2), and where the Collector is so prevented, the provisions of section 31, sub-section (2), (except the second proviso thereto), shall apply as they apply to the payment of compensation under that section. (3-B) The amount paid or deposited under sub-section (3A), shall be taken into account for determining the amount of compensation required to be tendered under section 31, and where the amount so paid or deposited exceeds the compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11, the excess may, unless refunded within three months from the date of the Collector's award, be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. (4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply, and, if it does not so direct, a declaration may be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time 4 [after the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1)”. 11. 11. As per the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, the land owners are given right to file objections for acquisition of the properties and as per the said provisions of law, it is imperative and obligatory on the part of the authorities to consider the objections by giving opportunity of being heard of the persons concerned. As per the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act, the authorities are given power to dispense with such enquiry and to deviate from the normal procedure under Section 5A of the Act in certain circumstances. The contentions advanced precisely in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that the petitioners are small farmers and there is availability of alternate Government land and that the authorities conducted enquiry under Section 5A of the Act as a mere formality without application of mind and failed to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners with objective approach. 12. A reading of the impugned proceedings dated 18.5.2009 whereby and whereunder, the 1st respondent herein rejected the objections of the petitioners for acquisition manifestly shows that there is absolutely no objective consideration nor pragmatic approach adopted by the 1st respondent while considering the objections raised by the petitioners. Except observing that the proposed acquisition is inevitable to meet the requirements of the requisition department, there is absolutely no other reason assigned by the 1st respondent while rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners. 13. Now the aspect which requires to be examined by this Court is as to whether such consideration of objections filed under Section 5A of the Act is in confirmity with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. 14. In SURINDER SINGH BRAR v. UNION OF INDIA (1 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs 87 to 90 held as under: “87. The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate of Section 5-A read with Section 6(1), the Court cannot, after the issue of declaration under Section 6(1), nullify the acquisition proceedings. The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate of Section 5-A read with Section 6(1), the Court cannot, after the issue of declaration under Section 6(1), nullify the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the ratio of both the judgments is that satisfaction of the appropriate Government envisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by consideration of the report prepared by the Collector after considering the objections filed under Section 5-A and hearing the objectors. This necessarily implies that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections filed by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by the Government which must be clearly reflected in the record. 88. In addition to what we have observed on the issue of flagrant violation of the two sections, it will be apposite to recapitulate the language of the declarations issued under Section 6(1), which were published on 28-2-2007. A reading of the declarations makes it clear that the authority issuing the same was totally unmindful of the requirement of the statute. This could be the only reason why instead of recording satisfaction of the appropriate Government that the land is needed for a public purpose, the notification uses the expressions “appears to the Administrator” and “likely to be needed”. This only adds to the casualness with which the entire issue of acquisition has been dealt with by the higher functionaries of the Chandigarh Administration. 89. This only adds to the casualness with which the entire issue of acquisition has been dealt with by the higher functionaries of the Chandigarh Administration. 89. Adverting to the impugned order6, we find that the High Court has not examined the substantive grounds on which the appellants had challenged the acquisition of their land with the required seriousness and failed to notice that the LAO had not at all considered several objections including those relating to adverse impact on the environment and ecology of the area raised by the landowners and mechanically recommended the acquisition of land notified under Section 4(1), that the reports of the LAO were not placed before the competent authority and that even the Adviser had not objectively considered the reports of the LAO in the light of the objections filed under Section 5-A(1) and simply appended his signatures on the note prepared by the Secretary (Finance). This omission on the High Court’s part has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 90. In view of the findings recorded on the main questions, we do not consider it necessary to deal with and decide other questions including the one that the purpose specified in the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) was not a bona fide public purpose and that in the garb of acquiring land for the IT Park, etc. the Chandigarh Administration wanted to favour the private developers.” 15. In SYED HUSSAIN v. THE JOINT SECRETARY, P.W.D. (R&B) GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD (2 supra), this Court at paragraph 5 while dealing with the rules framed under the Act, held as under: ?“5. In the instant case what is being complained of is that objections were made by the petitioners who are the owners of the land subject matter of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, but the Collector did not go through the processes contemplated under clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules. In Writ Appeal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1192 of 1993 to the ground raised specifically in this behalf, we find there is no rebuttal by the side of the respondents. During the course of hearing of this writ appeal, we queried Mr. In Writ Appeal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1192 of 1993 to the ground raised specifically in this behalf, we find there is no rebuttal by the side of the respondents. During the course of hearing of this writ appeal, we queried Mr. R. Narasimha Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition as to whether the objections of the petitioners were forwarded to the requisitioning Department for the purpose of getting its remarks for being considered during the course of further enquiry as contemplated under clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The answer given by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was in the negative. Thus we find that the requirements of clause (b) of Rule 3 of the Rules, stood violated in the instant case.” 16. In M.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH(3 supra), this Court at paragraph 6 held as under: “6. In this context, it needs to be noticed that Section 5-A(2) of the Act imposes an obligation on the appropriate Government to take a final decision, whether or not to proceed with the acquisition, duly taking into account the report, that may be submitted to him. The 2nd respondent is the substitute for the appropriate Government, in this context. He was required to take into account the remarks, undertake discussion and form his own opinion. Mere putting a seal of approval for the remarks offered by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be said to be a proper exercise of statutory power. The only protection given to a citizen against compulsory acquisition cannot be reduced to an empty formality. Therefore, there is a serious defect as to the exercise of power by the 2nd respondent.” 17. In UPPALAPATI BRAHMAMMA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (4 supra), this Court at paragraphs 7 to 9, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RADHY SHYAM (DEAD) THROUGH L.Rs v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (5 supra) held as under: “7. In a very recent Judgment, in Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRs and Ors. In UPPALAPATI BRAHMAMMA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (4 supra), this Court at paragraphs 7 to 9, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RADHY SHYAM (DEAD) THROUGH L.Rs v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (5 supra) held as under: “7. In a very recent Judgment, in Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRs and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., [ (2011) 5 SCC 553 ], the Apex Court in its pain staking judgment while exploring the relevant facets of the provisions of the Act and the nature and the powers inhered in the State for acquiring the lands of private persons and the valuable rights of the land owners who oppose the acquisitions, laid down comprehensive principles, some of which, relevant for the present purpose, are as under: (i) Eminent domain is a right inherent in every sovereign to take and appropriate property belonging to citizens for public use. To put it differently, the sovereign is entitled to reassert its dominion over any portion of the soil of the State including private property without the owner's consent provided that such assertion is on account of public exigency and for public good - Dwarakadas Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spg. & Wvg. Company Ltd. ( AIR 1954 S.C. 119 ) and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat [1995 (Supp). (1) SCC 596]. (ii) The legislations which provide for compulsory acquisition of private property by the State fall in the category of expropriatory legislation and such legislation must be construed strictly - DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust v. State of Haryana [ 2003(5) SCC 622 ], State of Maharashtra v. B.E. Billimoria [ 2003(7) SCC 336 ] and Dev Sharan v. State of U.P. [ 2011 (4) SCC 769 ]. (iii) Though, in exercise of the power of eminent domain, the Government can acquire the private property for public purpose, it must be remembered that compulsory taking of one's property is a serious matter. If the property belongs to economically disadvantaged segment of the society or people suffering from other handicaps, then the court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to scrutinize the action/decision of the State with greater vigilance, care and circumspection keeping in view the fact that the landowner is likely to become landless and deprived of the only source of his livelihood and/or shelter. (iv) The property of a citizen cannot be acquired by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities without complying with the mandate of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be does not entitle the State to invoke the urgency provisions because the same have the effect of depriving the owner of his right to property without being heard. Only in a case of real urgency, the State can invoke the urgency provisions and dispense with the requirement of hearing the landowner or other interested persons (emphasis added). 8. On a careful consideration of the facts, I am of the opinion that Respondent No. 2 ought not to have rejected the alternative proposals submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer even if such acceptance would have given rise to the necessity of providing pathway through the Petitioners' lands. 9. For all the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned acquisition proceedings are quashed to the extent of the Petitioners only, however, with liberty to the Respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings to acquire the alternative lands in terms of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer.” 18. Right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which mandates that no citizen shall be deprived of his/her property except in accordance with law. As per the said provision of the Constitution, due procedure needs to be adhered to while depriving a citizen of his property. Deprivation of property by way of compulsory acquisition is a matter of serious consequence and small the land, severe the matter. The right created under Section 5A of the Act to an objector of the acquisition is not an empty formality and on the other hand, it is a substantial and valuable right having regard to Article 300 of the Constitution of India. This right is the only protection created to a citizen to put-forward ?his difficulties and grievances in the enquiry. As per the pleadings in the writ affidavit, all the petitioners are small farmers and the courts time and again held that to the extent possible acquisition of lands of small farmers should not be resorted by way of compulsory acquisition. This right is the only protection created to a citizen to put-forward ?his difficulties and grievances in the enquiry. As per the pleadings in the writ affidavit, all the petitioners are small farmers and the courts time and again held that to the extent possible acquisition of lands of small farmers should not be resorted by way of compulsory acquisition. Farmers are the backbone of our Indian economy and in the process of urbanization, the agriculture is getting crippled day by day and number of farmers growing the food grains is getting diminished. Therefore, to the extent possible barring inevitable situation, compulsory acquisition of agricultural lands, thereby creating shortage of food production should be averted and avoided. The indiscriminate acquisition may also lead to unrest in the society. Compulsory acquisition may sometimes lead to displacing the farmers from their native villages and may lead to severance of bond from the native habitat, which would disturb social network also and it may ultimately result in unwarranted and unhealthy excessive urbanization. 19. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Executive Engineer (FAC), ISPLMC Division, Tuni addressed a letter in Letter No.EE/ISLMC/Tuni/DB/AEE(T)/429SE dated 22.6.2012 to the Superintending Engineer, ISPLMC Circle, Tuni, wherein it is stated that most of the lands proposed under Tail Dy beyond KM 13.310 will be converted into Industrial and Petro Chemical Parks, hence providing irrigation facilities to the land in the (8) villages including the village where the lands of the petitioners are situated may not be necessary. In fact, the Superintending Engineer, ISLMC Circle, Tuni vide Memo No.SE/ISLMCC/Tuni/OT.2/AE.2/ PLIS/Canals/Vol.44/552 dated 13.8.2012 requested the Executive Engineer, ISLMC Division, Tuni to depute concerned who is acquainted with the subject along with all the information to take further course of action. It is reported by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions that the said aspect is pending consideration before the Government. 20. It is reported by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions that the said aspect is pending consideration before the Government. 20. It is also brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Visakhapatnam-Kakinada Petroleum, Chemical and Petrochemical Investment Region-cum-Special Development Authority, Visakhapatnam issued a notification in Form-1 dated 5.8.2013 in respect of number of villages including the village of the petitioners informing the public that the Government of A.P. under Section 3 of Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 constituted Visakhapatnam, Kakinada Petroleum, Chemical and Petrochemical Investment Region-cum-Special Development Authority (PCPIR SDA) vide G.O.Ms.No.373 MA dated 24.5.2008 and further informing the public that for any development in the development area, permission has to be obtained from PCPIR SDA and further informed by virtue of the said notification, not to purchase any plot/land in the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam-Kakinada PCPIR SDA without the approval of the said authority. It is further brought to the notice of the Court that the said authority issued a notification in Form-I dated 3.8.2013, calling for objections as per Section 12(4) of the A.P. Urban Areas Act, 1977. 21. Non-consideration of objections in true letter and spirit of provisions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, would render the very proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 18.5.2009 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 18.8.2009 null and void and unsustainable in the eye of law. The respondent authorities, as evident from the impugned proceedings dated 18.5.2009, did not undertake objective consideration of the objections submitted by the petitioners and the 1st respondent failed to record any reasons for rejection of the objections submitted by the petitioners herein. It is also significant to note at this juncture that relying upon the information furnished by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Payakaraopeta on 27.11.2008 vide Lr.No.72 wherein it is clearly stated that there is irrigation canal namely Thandava Reservoir to cater to the entire villages and it is sufficient for supply to one crop and the approximate cost of the construction of the project on the Tandava River is estimated to 484.99 lakhs, the petitioners herein objected for the acquisition and the requisition authorities did not assign any valid reason. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that there is non-adherence to Rule 3B of the Rules framed under the Act is not sustainable, since the Deputy Executive Engineer attended the enquiry and furnished remarks. 22. ?This Court, from the material available on record, is of the opinion that the 1st respondent who is supposed to undertake objective consideration of the objections submitted by the petitioners herein, failed in his duty to do the same. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, having regard to the principles and parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court, this Court deems it apposite to allow the Writ Petition in part setting aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Ref.B2/663/08, dated 18.5.2009 and the draft declaration issued by the 1st respondent in Ref.B2/663/08, dated 18.8.2009. The respondents herein shall conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein and proceed in accordance with law by taking into consideration of the subsequent developments. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.