JUDGMENT : ABHAY S. OKA, J. 1. The appellant who is the original writ petitioner has taken an exception to the Judgment and order dated 9th February 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 34120/2015. The prayer in the writ petition filed by the appellant was for quashing and setting aside the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'L.A. Act') and for quashing a declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of L.A. Act. 2. The land in subject matter of dispute is in Sy.No.58/2P1 measuring 0.22.50 acres situated at Permannur village, Ullala, D.K. District. Preliminary Notification in respect of the said land under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of L.A. Act was issued on 12th April 2013 which was published in Government Gazette on 15th April 2013. The appellant submitted objections to the acquisition by making a representation in writing to the 3rd respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant was called by the Land Acquisition Officer for hearing. The appellant filed W.P. No. 5953/2014 on 3rd of February 2014 for challenging the aforesaid notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of L.A. Act. On 25th June 2015, a declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said land was published in Official Gazette. W.P. No. 5953/2014 filed by the petitioner along with W.P. 46920/2013 filed by one Smt. Pauline Queeny Anand were disposed of by learned Single Judge by order dated 2nd August 2014. The learned Single Judge did not disturb the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of L.A. Act. The learned Single Judge observed that the issues raised by the appellant can be considered at the time of an inquiry under Section 5A of L.A. Act. On 17th of July 2015, the appellant filed a second objection in accordance with Section 5A of L.A. Act. The present writ petition was filed by the appellant, as stated above, for challenging the Preliminary Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of L.A Act dated 12th April 2013 and the declaration under sub section (1) of Section 6 dated 25th June 2015. 3. A statement of objections was filed by the respondents. The present writ petition was filed by the appellant, as stated above, for challenging the Preliminary Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of L.A Act dated 12th April 2013 and the declaration under sub section (1) of Section 6 dated 25th June 2015. 3. A statement of objections was filed by the respondents. It was pointed out in the statement of objections that inquiry under Section 5A was conducted on 19th of June 2013 and that objections were considered before issuing the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6. It was pointed out that in terms of order dated 2nd August 2014 passed by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the appellant, he did not file any additional objections and that is how a declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 was published on 25th June 2015. Reliance was placed in the statement of objections on the interim orders passed by this Court in different proceedings. 4. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the plea of the appellant under Section 5A and to pass a fresh order. 5. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the grounds of the challenge to the Acquisition Proceedings were not at all considered by the learned Single Judge. He submitted that in fact when the impugned declaration under subsection (1) of Section 6 was issued, the period of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of L.A. Act had lapsed and therefore, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. He submitted that this main contention was not considered by the learned Single Judge apart from other contentions raised on merits. 6. The learned AGA for the first to third respondents relied upon interim orders made from time to time which are referred to and relied upon in the statement of objections filed before the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the periods for which the interim orders prevented the publication of a declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 are required to be excluded. The declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 was well within time considering the duration of various interim orders. He relied upon first explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 6 for excluding the said period. The declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 was well within time considering the duration of various interim orders. He relied upon first explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 6 for excluding the said period. He submitted that as the declaration of subsection (1) of Section 6 is already issued, there is no question of holding a fresh inquiry in accordance with Section 5A. He submitted that no interference was called for in writ jurisdiction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent reiterated the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate. The learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balagouda and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2000) ILR (Kar) 3469. 8. We have considered the submissions. We must note here that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed on record additional documents on 22nd June 2020, which include an award made under Section 11 of L.A. Act on 15th June 2019. As can be seen from the writ petition filed by the appellant, one of the main grounds of challenge was that the acquisition proceedings stand vitiated as the declaration of sub-section (1) of Section 6 was not made within time stipulated in sub-section (1) of Section 6. There were other challenges to the Acquisition proceedings. However, those challenges have not been gone into and all that the learned Single Judge had done is to direct a fresh inquiry under Section 5A of L.A. Act. We, therefore, suggested to the learned counsel appearing for appellant and the learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent that with a view to avoid passing of an order of remand, though the factual and legal challenges have not been considered by the learned Single Judge, by consent of the parties, all the challenges can be gone into in this appeal itself. However, there was no consensus on this aspect. 9. Firstly, we must note here the exact nature of the impugned order. Paragraph 4 of the impugned order reads thus: "4. Under these circumstances I am of the considered view, that it would be just and proper to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the plea of the petitioner and thereafter record his finding under Section 5 (a). 9. Firstly, we must note here the exact nature of the impugned order. Paragraph 4 of the impugned order reads thus: "4. Under these circumstances I am of the considered view, that it would be just and proper to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the plea of the petitioner and thereafter record his finding under Section 5 (a). As requested, the petitioner to appear before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, namely, the 3rd respondent on 14-2-2017. The learned counsel assures this Court that on the very same day he will submit and conclude his submissions. The Assistant Commissioner the 2nd respondent to thereafter pass a fresh order. All contentions kept open. Writ petition disposed off accordingly." 10. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, has not set aside the notification under sub-section 1 of Section 4 and the declaration of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of L.A. Act and has directed holding of a fresh inquiry under Section 5A. Under sub-section (1) of Section 4, when it appears to the appropriate Government that a land is likely to be needed for a public purpose, a notification to that effect is required to be published in the Official Gazette and in the manner provided under the said section. Section 5A permits the objections to the proposed acquisition to be submitted to the Collector in writing by the persons interested in the land notified. Sub-Section (2) of Section 5A provides that the Collector shall give the objectors an opportunity of being heard in person or through their pleader. Section 5A is material for consideration which read thus: "5A. 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. (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." (Underline supplied) 11. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 5A, after hearing the objections raised by the person interested, the objections must be considered by the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector is required to submit a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations together with the record of the proceedings. Thereafter, after considering the report, a declaration under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the L.A. Act can be published. The scheme of the L.A. Act does not contemplate Collector or Land Acquisition Officer passing an order on the objections raised to notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the L.A Act. It does not contemplate or recording any findings. Sub-Section (2) of section 5A contemplates only a submission of a report by the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the objections. Thereafter, the appropriate Government is required to decide, after considering the report of the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, whether the land is needed for the public purpose as specified in the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the L.A. Act. 12. Therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh order is erroneous and cannot be justified as the same is against the scheme of the L.A Act. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has not set aside the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 published on 25th June 2015. 12. Therefore, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh order is erroneous and cannot be justified as the same is against the scheme of the L.A Act. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has not set aside the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 published on 25th June 2015. Therefore, there is no question of going back to the stage of hearing under Section 5A of the L.A. Act. The challenge in the writ petition was to the notification under subsection (1) of Section 4 and subsequent declaration under subsection (1) of Section 6 which has not been considered on merits at all. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and pass an order of remand. 13. Accordingly we pass the following: ORDER: (i) The impugned order dated 9th February 2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 34120/2015 is hereby set aside. (ii) Writ Petition No. 34120/2015 is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge. (iii) Considering the nature of the public purpose and the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2015, we are sure that necessary priority will be given by the learned Single Judge for disposal of the writ petition in accordance with law. (iv) All the contentions on merits are left open to be decided by the learned Single Judge. (v) Appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.