Judgment : F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mrs. A. Agni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued by the respondents for acquisition of the land under various survey numbers including survey nos. 154/1, 154/2, 156/1 in the year 1990 and objections were raised under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the said Act") on 23.07.1990, which were subsequently dropped by the respondents. Thereafter, on 27.01.2000 attempts were made by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Department of Telecom Services to instal a telephone cables by digging in the property “MOLLA” surveyed under the said survey numbers which was objected by the predecessor in title of the petitioners by filing a Civil Suit No. 167/2000 which was partly decreed by judgment dated 30.03.2007. The first appeal filed was admitted by this Court and is pending for final hearing. In the meanwhile a notice inviting tenders, appeared in the 'Navhind Times' in January, 2010 for improvement and B-T of left out road at Rohinibhat. It was learnt by the petitioner no.1 that the work was being carried out on priority basis which led the petitioners to file a Civil Suit in the District Court apprehending that the road would be constructed through the property of the petitioners. The suit was dismissed on 25.01.2012 and appeal preferred before this Court is still pending. Thereafter, on 30.08.2012 a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published in the local newspaper on 30.08.2012 and objections were filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the said Act on behalf of all the legal heirs of late Antonio Tiago e D'Costa. The personal hearing was given by the Dy. Collector and a report under Section 5A of the said Act was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer on 06.02.2013. The personal hearing was given by the Dy. Collector and a report under Section 5A of the said Act was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer on 06.02.2013. Thereafter, a Notification under Section 6 of the said Act was also published in the Official Gazette on 14.03.2013 and being aggrieved by the said Notification the petitioners preferred a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P. No. 394 of 2013 which came to be disposed of by order dated 12.08.2013 on the basis of a statement made on behalf of the respondents that the Notification under Section 6 would be withdrawn and the petitioners would be given a hearing before submitting the report under section 5A of the said Act. Accordingly, the petitioners filed additional objections to the acquisition inter-alia contending that the road was being constructed at the behest of the local minister and the same was being made only for the benefit of one person namely Sarika Kamble who has a house in Rohinibhat in the property surveyed under No.154/2 and who is an ex-pancha. It was also pointed out that the existing road is at a distance of 75 meters from the property surveyed under no.154/2 and the proposed road would also be at a distance of 75 meters from the existing road. Despite of the said objections the report under Section 5A of the said Act was submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer recommending the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said Notification, the petitioners preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the Notification essentially on the ground that the report under Section 5A did not at all examine the objections raised by the petitioners. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel, a short point which arises in the present petition is whether an effective hearing in terms of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) was afforded to the petitioners while examining the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to the acquisition by the respondents of the land for the construction of a road. 5. Mrs. 5. Mrs. Agni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that despite a specific direction of this Court to hold an inquiry to examine the objections raised by the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer without any application of mind nor examining the issues involved in connection with the objections raised by the petitioners has summarily given a report under Section 5A of the said Act recommending the acquisition. The learned counsel has further taken us through the report of the Land Acquisition Officer and pointed out that there is no objective reasoning by the Land Acquisition Officer to the objections raised by the petitioners to the proposed acquisition. The learned counsel as such points out that as an effective hearing has not been given to the petitioners with regard to the objections raised, the report under Section 5A of the said Act stands vitiated and, as such, the notification under Section 6 issued by the respondent cannot be sustained. The learned counsel, as such, submits that the notification under Section 6 of the said Act deserves to be quashed and set aside and the land acquisition officer be directed to give an effective hearing to the petitioners in connection with the objections raised by the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, Mr. V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has pointed out that though the Land Acquisition Officer has not given any appreciable reasons nevertheless, there is enough application of mind by the Land Acquisition Officer to the objections raised by the petitioners. The learned Additional Government Advocate thereafter pointed out that a report under Section 5A of the said Act does not require any specific reasons to reject the objections raised by the petitioners and, as such, the Land Acquisition Officer has taken an overall view of the matter with regard to the objections raised by the petitioners and as such there is no reason for any interference by this Court in facts and circumstances of the case. 7. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel and we have also gone through the record. On a plain reading of the report under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, we find that there is no application of mind at all by the Land Acquisition Officer to the objections raised by the petitioners. 7. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel and we have also gone through the record. On a plain reading of the report under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, we find that there is no application of mind at all by the Land Acquisition Officer to the objections raised by the petitioners. It is also to be noted that it is not in dispute that there was no effective hearing to the petitioners with regard to the objections raised by them. It is well settled that in the cases of acquisition of properties, the only remedy available to the land owners is to raise objections to the acquisition under Section 5A of the said Act and being heard on such objection by the Land Acquisition Officer. Not giving an effective hearing nor examining the objections raised by the petitioners by itself will vitiate the report under Section 5A and call for interference by this Court in the present petition. 8. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013)8 SCC 99 in the case of Women's Education Trust and another Vs State of Haryana and others has observed at paras 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 6 thus:- “5.4. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed by the interested persons. 5.5. The Land Acquisition Collector is required to submit his report and the recommendations to the State Government along with the record of proceedings to enable the latter to take final call on the desirability, propriety and justification for the acquisition of the particular parcel(s) of land. 5.6. The declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act can be issued only if the appropriate Government, on an objective application of mind to the objections filed by the interested persons including the landowners and the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, is satisfied that the land is needed for the particular purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. 6. 6. It is unfortunate that despite repeated judicial pronouncements, the executive authorities entrusted with the task of acquiring private land for any specified public purposes have time and again exhibited total lack of seriousness in the performance of their duties under the statute. Often they do not comply with the mandate of Section 5-A of the Act, which is sine qua non for making a valid declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. This batch of appeals is illustrative of the malady that has afflicted the State authorities who are keen to acquire private lands in the name of planned development of various urban areas, but do not bother to comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice.” Considering the observations of the Apex Court referred to herein above, we find that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the objections raised by the petitioners while submitting the report under Section 5A of the said Act which itself vitiate the report and consequent notification under Section 6 of the said Act. As already stated herein above, the objections raised by the petitioners have not at all been examined by the Land Acquisition Officer nor any reason given for not considering such objections. In such circumstances, we have no other alternative than to quash and set aside the notification under Section 6 of the said Act dated 13.09.2013 as well as the report under Section 5A of the said Act. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2012(6) Bom. C. R. 844 in the case of Estefania Dias e Pereira & anr V/s State of Goa & Ors, in which one us (F. M. Reis, J) is a party has observed at paras 13 and 14 thus: “13. If the Collector was merely required to note or state the objections, and the response thereto the provisions of section 5-A would have been entirely different. In that event, section 5-A would merely have required the Collector to forward a report “containing the objections and the responses thereto”. In that event, the words “containing his recommendations on the objections” would not have been there for in any event he is to forward to the Government the “record of the proceedings” held by him. This record would contain the objections and the responses in any event. In that event, the words “containing his recommendations on the objections” would not have been there for in any event he is to forward to the Government the “record of the proceedings” held by him. This record would contain the objections and the responses in any event. It is axiomatic, therefore, that the words “containing his recommendations on the objections” mandate reasons for the Collector's recommendations on the objections. 14. A report under section 5-A is an important step in the acquisition proceedings. It affects the rights of the parties substantially. We do not suggest that the report under section 5-A must be detailed or read like a judgment. It must however indicate that the objections have been considered. Merely noting the objections does not constitute a consideration of the same. Mere conclusion do not, at least in most cases, indicate that the objections and the response thereto, if any, of the authorities were considered by the Collector. The report must indicate why the objection or the response thereto as the case may be, is accepted by the Collector.” Considering the said observations of the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, we find that the Land Acquisition Officer has not examined the objections raised by the petitioners in respect of the land intended to be acquired in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, we pass the following: ORDER (i) The report under Section 5A of the said Act vis-a-vis the land of the petitioners is also quashed and set aside. (ii) The notification under Section 6 of the said Act dated 13/9/2013 vis-a-vis the land of the petitioners stands quashed and set aside. (iii) The Land Acquisition Officer shall proceed to hear the petitioners and submit a reasoned report under Section 5A of the said Act in accordance with law. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the terms above. (v) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.