JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of counsel for petitioners and Assistant Government Pleader, writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. Petitioners, who are the tenants of Wakf property, challenge the orders passed by the competent authority under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) opposing the acquisition of land. 3. First petitioner is the tenant of premises bearing Municipal No.5-5-511 and running a hotel, by name, New Hotel Empire and the second petitioner is a tenant of the premises bearing Municipal Nos.5-5-511/1 and 5-5-513 and running a medical shop in house No.5-5-511/1 and sweet shop, by name, Hameedi Confectioner in house No.5-5-513. Both the properties are situated opposite to Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad. These properties belong to Tamgha Wakf (Mutavalli Syed Hassan Ibrahim Hussaini Quadri). Petitioners averred that first petitioner’s family is in occupation of the said property for more than sixty years and second petitioner’s family for more than hundred years. 4. Section 4(1) notification was published in the official gazette dated 05.09.2013 expressing the intention of the Government to acquire the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the notification to widen the road to 120 feet as per the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Master Plan, from Ravindra Bharathi to Mozamjahi Market Junction. The case of the petitioners is, in Section 4(1) notification, the names of the petitioners were reflected in the schedule against the above properties and petitioners were also served notices to participate in section 5A enquiry. First petitioner filed objections dated 05.10.2013 and second petitioner filed objections on 15.10.2013. Petitioners have raised several objections. By order dated 21.10.2013, orders were passed under Section 5A. First petitioner contended that in front of their property, where the petitioner is the tenant, the road width is 102 feet. If the road is widened to 120 feet, the balance of 18 feet has to be equally divided on both sides of the road i.e., 9 feet each and, therefore, on the side of the road where the property of the petitioner is situated only 9 feet ought to have been acquired. Though the objections petition filed by the first petitioner was referred to in serial no.2 of the order, this particular objection is not even reflected and no reasons are assigned as to why the objection of the 1st petitioner is not tenable. Second petitioner has also raised similar objection. Though the objections petition filed by the first petitioner was referred to in serial no.2 of the order, this particular objection is not even reflected and no reasons are assigned as to why the objection of the 1st petitioner is not tenable. Second petitioner has also raised similar objection. The objections filed by the 2nd petitioner were received much before the orders are passed by the competent authority under Section 5-A, but his objections are not even reflected in the order. As follow up action, draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 31.10.2013. In this writ petition, petitioners challenge the orders passed by the competent authority under Section 5-A on 21.10.2013. 5. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.A.Deepthi standing counsel for respondents 3 to 5. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Vedula Srinivas contended that the objections filed by the petitioners were not considered and no reasons are assigned and, therefore, on this ground alone order passed in pursuant to Section 5-A enquiry is liable to be set aside. 7. He further contended that the petitioners are the tenants of the premises carrying on business for a long time, which is proposed for acquisition, and on account of acquisition, they would be dislocated and cause grave hardship and suffering. Petitioners being tenants of the premises under acquisition, they are entitled to be heard during Section 5-A enquiry and are also entitled to be heard during the award enquiry. 8. By referring to provisions in Sections 3(b), 5-A(3), 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that Act recognizes even a tenant as person interested and provides giving of opportunity of hearing and consideration of objections of the tenant. He, therefore, submitted that not hearing the petitioners vitiated the entire proceedings. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners invested huge money in developing the property and on account of present acquisition, the major portion of property would be demolished and residuary property is not suitable for carrying on the business and, therefore, this acquisition adversely affect the business of the petitioners and cause grave hardship and suffering and huge financial loss, which cannot be remedied and, therefore, tenant is entitled to be heard along with the owners of the property under acquisition. 10. 10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. V. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and others (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 221). ii) Scindia Employees’ Union Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 150). iii) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., and others (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 482 (1). iv) Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Coutinho (dead) by LRs (1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 223). v) Union of India Vs. Ajit Singh and others (AIR 1987 Delhi 151). vi) C. VenkataiahVs. District Collector, Ananthapur and others (2006 (3) ALT 735). vii) Janaki Vs. State of Karnataka (Laws (Kar)-2011-11-25). 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions based on instructions from the respondents. She submitted that petitioners being tenants, they are not entitled for notice or opportunity of hearing. She further submitted that the owner of the property has agreed for acquisition of the property and has also consented for passing of an award. She further submitted that the at the most, petitioners are entitled to be heard during award enquiry as per the provision contained in Section 10(1) of the Act. She therefore submitted that not considering the objections of the petitioners during the Section 5-A enquiry, has no legal significance since petitioners are not entitled to be heard as they are not the owners of the property. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that in accordance with the provision contained in Section 5-A(3) of the Act, a person can be considered as person interested for the purpose of affording opportunity of hearing during Section 5-A enquiry, if he is a person interested to receive the compensation. Tenant is not entitled to receive the compensation and, therefore, insofar as section 5-A(3) is concerned, tenant is not a person interested for the purpose of affording of an opportunity. Section 10(1) gives wider coverage of the person interested and includes a tenant also and, therefore, a tenant is entitled to be heard during award enquiry. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the present widening of the road in this stretch is in accordance with the Road Development Plan of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and as already notified, the road widening is for 120 feet. 13. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that the present widening of the road in this stretch is in accordance with the Road Development Plan of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and as already notified, the road widening is for 120 feet. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance in the following decisions in support of her contention that petitioners are not the persons who are entitled to be afforded opportunity of hearing: i) Ambalal Purshottam etc., V. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others ( AIR 1968 SC 1223 ). ii) Scindia Employees’ Union Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (1996) 10 Supreme Court Cases 150). iii) M.Surya Rao V. District Collector, Land Acquisition, Kakinada, E.G. District and others ( 2004 (4) ALD 9 ). iv) Union of India and others Vs. Krishna Lal Arneja and others (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 453). v) May George Vs. Special Tahsildar and others (2010(6) Scale 71). 14. The point that arises for consideration is whether a tenant of a property, which is proposed for acquisition, is entitled to be heard under Section 5-A of the Act and not affording the opportunity or not considering the objections filed by the tenant would vitiate the land acquisition proceedings when the owner of the property has consented for such acquisition. 15. To appreciate the issue for consideration, the relevant provisions are Sections 3(b), 5-A(3), 9 (3) and 10(1) of the Act. 16. Sections 3(b), 5-A(3), 9(3) and 10(1) read as under: Section 3(b): “The expression “person interested” includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land”. Section 5-A(3): “For the purpose 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.” Section 9(3): (3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorized to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate. Section 10(1): (1) The Collector may also require any such person to make or deliver to him, at a time and place mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of the requisition), a statement containing, so far as may be practicable, the name of every other person possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof as co-proprietor, sub-proprietor, mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, and of the nature of such interest, and of the rents and profits (if any), received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of the statement. 17. By interpreting definition of “person interested” in Section 3(b), Supreme Court in Neyvely Lignite (supra 1) held that it is an inclusive definition and all persons claiming an interest in the compensation as well as an interest in the determination of the compensation and easementary right affecting the acquired land are all the persons interested and entitled to be heard. 18. This Court in C.Venkaiah (supra 6), held that person incharge of the temple is entitled to raise objections against the land acquisition and has locus standi to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. 19. In Janaki (supra 7), petitioners were the cultivators of lands as grantees of the Government land. The question considered by Karnataka High Court was whether the grantee of the Government land is entitled to compensation on account of the compulsory acquisition. Karnataka High Court held that the non-owner of a property can legitimately claim the compensation and if the acquisition takes place, the compensation has to be paid to all those who are displaced on account of the compulsory acquisition of lands and cannot be restricted to the title-holders. When the land is compulsorily acquired, the rehabilitation got to be inclusive. 20. In Himalayan Tiles (supra 4), the acquisition was proposed on behalf of a company. The Supreme court held that company is a person interested. 21. Union of India (supra 5) is also on the question of apportionment of compensation. The Court held that lessor is entitled to 25% of the compensation. 22. In Scindia (supra 9), the Union challenged the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that on the land, which was proposed for acquisition, a workshop is situated and if the same is acquired, the employees are going to be adversely affected. The Court held that lessor is entitled to 25% of the compensation. 22. In Scindia (supra 9), the Union challenged the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that on the land, which was proposed for acquisition, a workshop is situated and if the same is acquired, the employees are going to be adversely affected. They contended that they come within the definition of person interested as defined in Section 3(d) of the Act, and therefore, they are entitled to participate in Section 5-A enquiry. Dealing with the said contention, the Supreme Court held as under: “The only scope of the enquiry under Section 5-A is whether the land sought to be acquired is needed for a public purpose and whether the land is suitable for the purpose or is in arable land. Besides these questions, the inter se claim of the employer and the workmen of payment of wages and extent thereof are alien to the enquiry. Sub-section (3) of Section 5-A makes the scope beyond pale of doubt. If the interested person is entitled to compensation or by implication bound by award of compensation or excess compensation, he is an interested person. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to be persons interested for the purpose of an enquiry under Section 5-A.” 23. Supreme Court further held that question of their disabilities due to acquisition is collateral to the enquiry under Section 5-A and, therefore, there was no need to give notice under Section 5-A (2) nor to hear the petitioners. 24. In M.Surya Rao (supra 10), learned Single Judge of this Court held that petitioner being a tenant of the property under acquisition, he can as well seek his share of compensation that may be awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, but he certainly cannot question the acquisition proceedings on mere technicalities. 25. In Union of India (supra 11), Supreme Court rejected the objection raised on the maintainability of the writ petition. Supreme Court held that it is clear from Section 5-A(3) of the Act that for the purpose of said section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land was acquired. In an appropriate case, a tenant having sufficient subsisting interest in the land can challenge the acquisition proceedings. 26. In an appropriate case, a tenant having sufficient subsisting interest in the land can challenge the acquisition proceedings. 26. In May George (supra 12), it is held that non-compliance of the requirement of hearing does not vitiate the land acquisition proceedings, more particular when the person, who is seeking for hearing is a tenant who cannot be classified as a person interested in compensation. 27. On an analysis of principles laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts and the combined reading of the provisions in Sections 3(b), 5-A(3), 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is safe to assume that a tenant of premises under acquisition is also a person interested and is entitled to be heard. The right of hearing and extent of objections that he can raise may not be same as comparable to the owner of the property. Such right is independent of the right of owner. Acquisition not only affects the owner of the land, but also the tenant. The impact on the tenant on such acquisition can vary. For example, the tenant takes the property on long lease and with the consent of the owner invests huge money to develop the property to suit his business or avocation with the hope that the property would be in his possession for a longer period as agreed upon. However, in view of initiation of the acquisition proceedings, the tenant is going to be adversely affected. In the instant case, it is the assertion of the petitioners that they have been in occupation and enjoyment of the property under acquisition for several decades and have made huge investments. It is the assertion of the petitioners that on account of partial acquisition of property, the remaining portion of the property cannot be utilized by the petitioners to carryon their business and because of the acquisition, they are going to be adversely affected. In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that petitioners are not the persons interested and that non consideration of their objections in Section 5-A enquiry and not affording an opportunity of hearing is not fatal. 28. If the land acquisition proceedings are taken beyond their back, with the tacit approval of the owner, for obvious reasons, they would be the persons who would be adversely affected more than the owner. 28. If the land acquisition proceedings are taken beyond their back, with the tacit approval of the owner, for obvious reasons, they would be the persons who would be adversely affected more than the owner. In fact the names of the petitioners were reflected in Section 4(1) notification. They were also given notice of Section 5-A enquiry. The objections filed by the petitioners were received, but those objections were not considered. In fact the objections of the second petitioner are not even reflected in the order. In view of the precedents on the subject and in the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that respondents are erred in not considering the objections of the petitioners and in not affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is appropriate to note that so far award is not passed. 29. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The order of 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.C1/1013/2013, dated 21.10.2013 is set aside to the extent of the petitioners and matter is remitted to the competent authority to the stage of 5-A enquiry. The competent authority is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, consider their objections and pass a reasoned order. The petitioners are also entitled to be heard in the award enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.