Judgment : Since the cause which compelled the petitioners in these Writ Petitions to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is the same, this Court deems it apposite to dispose of these three Writ Petitions by way of this Common Order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents apart from perusing the material available on record. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts, which are relevant for the disposal of the present Writ Petitions are as under: The petitioners in W.P.No. 17751 of 2006, W.P. 20941 of 2006, W.P.No.21007 of 2006 own the lands admeasuring Ac.6.35 gunts in S.No.520/1 and 2, AC.4.19 Guntas in S.No.521/1 to 11 and Ac.0.32 gunts in S.No. 521/1 to 11 respectively and the said lands are situated at Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy/ 2nd respondent herein issued a draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after called as “Act”) vide Proceedings dt. 16.08.2005, proposing to acquire the said lands for expansion of Existing Apparel Export Park by APIIC Limited. The petitioners filed objections for the said acquisition and thereafter the second respondent/District Collector issued a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide Proceedings No.G1/103/05, dt. 05.07.2006. Calling in question the validity and the legal acceptability of the said proceedings, these Writ Petitions have been filed. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents, denying the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions and in the direction justifying the impugned action. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent authorities did not consider the objections filed by the petitioners and failed to adhere to the object, underlying Section 5-A of the Act and had the objections been considered, the impugned proceedings would have been dropped. To bolster their submissions, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleym Corporation Limited V. Darius Shapur Chenai and others ( 2005 (7) SCC 627 ). To bolster their submissions, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleym Corporation Limited V. Darius Shapur Chenai and others ( 2005 (7) SCC 627 ). Per contra, it is vehemently and emphatically contended by the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the APIIC that the impugned proceedings are strictly in conformity with the provisions of the land acquisition and that in the absence of violation of or infringement of constitutional or statutory right, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not available to the petitioners herein. In the light of the above pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the issue which this Court is called upon to answer in these Writ Petitions is whether the impugned proceedings are sustainable and tenable in the eye of law? The provisions of law which are germane and relevant for the purpose of resolving the controversy in the present Writ Petitions are Sections 5-A and 17 of the Act, 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 authorized 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. 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, subsection (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 subsection 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. Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of any building or part of a building under this subsection 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 refund 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)”. From the reading of the above provisions of law, it would be very much obvious that the provisions of Sections 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act confer right on the land owners to file objections for acquisition and the said provisions impose obligation on the authorities to consider the same by giving opportunity of being heard to the persons concerned. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court on this aspect . In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited V. Darius Shapur Chenai and others (1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 6, 8, 15, 16 and 29 held as under: 6. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of ‘eminent domain” may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefore must be paid. 8. The conclusiveness contained in Section 6 of the Act indisputably is attached to a need as also the purpose and in this regard ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the court is limited but it is equally true that when an opportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. The court in a case, where there has been total non-compliance or substantial non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders a declaration to be a conclusive evidence. But when the decision making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well- known principles, viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. 15. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. 15. Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Upon receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make such further enquiry as he may think necessary whereupon he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in respect of the land which is the subject matter of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said Report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a Report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. It is now well-settled in view of a catena of decisions that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason. [See Kalumiya Karimmiya Vs. The State of Gujarat and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 715 and Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Others, (2000) 7 SCC 296 ]. 16. However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is trite, must precede a proper application of mind on the part of the Government. As and when a person aggrieved questions the decision making process, the court in order to satisfy itself as to whether one or more grounds for judicial review exists, may call for the records whereupon such records must be produced. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989. As noticed hereinbefore, the said writ petition was allowed. This Court, however, interfered with the said order of the High Court and remitted the matter back to it upon giving an opportunity to the parties to raise additional pleadings. 29. The Act is an expropriatory legislation. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors. [ 1966 (3) SCR 557 ] observed that in such a case the provisions of the statute should be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent. [See also Khub Chand and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1967 (1) SCR 120 and Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597 ]. [See also Khub Chand and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1967 (1) SCR 120 and Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597 ]. In Syed Hussain V. The Joint Secretary, P.W.D (R.&B) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (1994(2) ALT 48 (DB)), 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 Miscelleneous 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. In M. Chandra Sekhar Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ( 2010(5) ALD 611 ), this Court at paragraph 6 held as under: In this contest, it needs to be noticed that Section 5A(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. 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. In Uppalapati Brahmamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 2011(5) ALD 447 ), 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 ( (2011) 5 SCC 553 )held as under: 7. In a very recent judgment, in Radhy Shyam (dead) through L.Rs 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 SC 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: 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, 5A 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). Reverting to the cases on hand, the respondent authorities are attempting to justify their impugned action by advancing the plea in the counter affidavits that they did not consider the objections since the purpose in the instant case is a public purpose. The said justification sought to be offered by the authorities for sustaining the impugned action is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. Right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which, in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen shall be deprived of his/her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. As per the said provision of the Constitution, due procedure needs to be adhered to while depriving a citizen of his/her property. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is as ex-proprietary legislation, as such the provision of the said legislation are required to be followed and adhered to meticulously and scrupulously. Deprivation of property by way of compulsory acquisition is a matter of serious consequence. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is as ex-proprietary legislation, as such the provision of the said legislation are required to be followed and adhered to meticulously and scrupulously. Deprivation of property by way of compulsory acquisition is a matter of serious consequence. The right created under section 5-A 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 and as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the said right is akin to fundamental and human right having regard to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. This right is only the right created to the citizens to put forward thier difficulties or grievances in the enquiry. Non consideration of objections in true letter and spirit of the provisions of law would undoubtedly render the consequential proceedings i.e., draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act null and void and unsustainable in the eye of law. The respondent authorities, as evident from the material on record, failed to undertake objective consideration of the objections submitted by the petitioners nor they adopted any pragmatic approach towards the issue. Mere existence of element of public purpose by any stretch of imagination, would not absolve statutory obligation of holding 5-A enquiry nor it is a ground to deprive such a valuable right. In the instant case, the purpose is extension of Apparel Export Park and the same cannot be said to be a purpose of imminent urgency, which cannot brook any delay. This Court, from the material on record, has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation to hold that the District Collector/2nd Respondent failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and the principles laid down in the above referred judgments. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed, setting aside the Draft Declaration issued by the District Collector by Proceeding No.G1/103/05 dt. 05.07.2006 to the extent of the petitioners herein. It is made clear that the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The petitioners herein are also entitled to submit additional objections, if any, if they choose to do so. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.