ORDER : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. This writ petition challenges the amended notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), dated 06.02.2010, followed by declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on the same day and consequential award, dated 03.03.2012, for acquiring the petitioner land admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents in Survey No.327/3 of Pandithavilluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, without jurisdiction, in violation of principles of natural justice and offending Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner owns an extent of Ac.2.23 cents in Survey No.327/2 and an extent of Ac.2.56 cents in Survey No.327/3 of Pandithavilluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District. Initially, notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 27.04.2007 proposing to acquire petitioner land in Survey No.327/2 admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. As declaration under Section 6 came to be issued after lapse of one year from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18659 of 2008 challenging the aforesaid notification and the declaration. By order, dated 01.09.2008, the said writ petition was allowed, however, liberty was granted to issue fresh proceedings. Later on, the 2 nd respondent has issued a fresh notification under Section 4(1) on 11.12.2008 proposing to acquire the very same land of the petitioner in Survey No.327/2 and the same was published on 18.12.2008. In pursuance of the same, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted. The petitioner has submitted objections during the enquiry, which came to be rejected by proceedings, dated 30.01.2009. It is further stated that as no other villager was coming forward to part with their land for construction of houses to weaker sections, respondents 2 to 4 have come up with a promise to pay the market value at the rate of Rs.7,50,000/- per acre within two weeks from the date of respective farmers giving consent, believing which, the petitioner has given consent by letter, dated 14.08.2009 agreeing to part with his other land in Survey No.327/3 admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents. The petitioner has also signed Form-III agreement, dated 09.02.2010 and affidavit in Form-IV, as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition Negotiations Rules, 1992 (for short, “the Negotiations Rules, 1992”), giving consent for acquiring an extent of Ac.2.23 cents in Survey No.327/3. The petitioner has also signed Form-III agreement, dated 09.02.2010 and affidavit in Form-IV, as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition Negotiations Rules, 1992 (for short, “the Negotiations Rules, 1992”), giving consent for acquiring an extent of Ac.2.23 cents in Survey No.327/3. However, the respondents have neither concluded the proceedings in terms of the agreement in Form-III nor have returned back the aforesaid documents, but, surprisingly, they proceeded with the proceedings under revised Section 4(1) notification, dated 11.12.2008, by issuing declaration under Section 6 on 04.02.2010. 3. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15899 of 2011 questioning the aforesaid Section 4(1) notification, dated 11.12.2008 and Section 6 declaration, dated 04.02.2010. This Court, while issuing notice before admission, passed interim order, dated 13.06.2011 directing the respondents to maintain status quo, however, as the respondents tried to enter into petitioner land and flag them, Contempt Case No.952 of 2011 was filed to punish the officers for violating the aforesaid interim order. In those proceedings, counter-affidavit was filed informing that the 2 nd respondent had issued amended notification, dated 04.02.2010, which was gazetted on 06.02.2010 proposing to amend the revised Section 4(1) notification, dated 11.12.2008, by which, the land of the petitioner in Survey No.327/3 admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents was sought to be acquired rather than the initially stated land in Survey No.327/2. It was also informed that simultaneously Section 6 declaration, dated 04.02.2010, was also published in the gazette on 06.02.2010. The petitioner had, therefore, withdrawn the said writ petition on 26.12.2011 with liberty to challenge the aforesaid amended Section 4(1) notification. Meanwhile, the respondents have proceeded with award enquiry and an award, dated 03.03.2012, was passed determining the compensation as Rs.2,42,000/- per acre with other statutory benefits, as against the offer of Rs.7,50,000/- per acre, as promised earlier. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition challenging the amended Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 draft declaration proposing to acquire the petitioner land in Survey No.327/3 admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents. 4. The 3 rd respondent filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents admitting that the original draft notification issued under Section 4(1), dated 27.04.2007, proposing to acquire petitioner land in Survey No.327/2 admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents and the consequential draft declaration issued under Section 6 were set aside by this Court in W.P.No.18659 of 2008. However, liberty was given to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, liberty was given to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In pursuance to such liberty, the respondents have issued fresh draft notification under Section 4(1), dated 11.12.2008 and the same was published on 18.12.2008. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 02.08.2009 and after hearing the objections of the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent had passed orders vide proceedings, dated 30.01.2009, rejecting the same. While that being so, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated 14.08.2009, to the 2 nd respondent giving his content to part with equal extent of land in Survey No.327/3 instead of the land in Survey No.327/2, as he was having agricultural interest in the originally proposed to be acquired land, considering which, an amendment to the earlier draft notification was made on 04.02.2010 and published in the District Gazette on 06.02.2010. As already enquiry under Section 5-A was concluded, draft declaration under Section 6 was also approved on 04.02.2010 and published in the District Gazette on 06.02.2010. As the petitioner has already given his consent to part with land in Survey No.327/3, the proposals were approved and award enquiry was conducted in terms of the provisions of the Act and award under Section 11(1) of the Act was passed on 03.03.2012. The land of the petitioner was taken possession on 13.03.2012 and the compensation has been deposited before the competent civil court in terms of Section 31(2) of the Act. It is, therefore, stated that the respondents have followed the procedure as prescribed under the provisions of the Act and there is no irregularity or infirmity in the manner and method of acquiring the petitioner land, calling for any interference. 5. The 4 th respondent on behalf of the respondents filed additional counter-affidavit on 23.06.2015, inter alia, contending that the alleged Form-III agreement, which is said to have been executed between the parties, is non est and invalid in as much as the same was not concluded by following the procedure contemplated under the Negotiations Rules, 1992 and none of the members of the District Level Negotiations Committee have been consulted or involved while concluding the same. It was further stated that the total compensation amount of Rs.9,05,212.78 ps. It was further stated that the total compensation amount of Rs.9,05,212.78 ps. was deposited with the Reference Court by way of demand draft and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the same, he has remedy of seeking reference under Section 18(1) of the Act, even which, the petitioner has not availed, therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. On perusal of the proceedings sheet, initially, while issuing notice before admission, the interim prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents not to dispossess him from the subject property was rejected, by order, dated 10.10.2012, in W.P.M.P. No.24453 of 2012, upon considering the submission of the respondents that possession of the subject land was already taken. The petitioner, thereafter, again filed WPMP No.39083 of 2013 seeking stay of proceedings before the Reference Court, which was ordered by this Court on 29.01.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application in WPMP No.37909 of 2014, inter alia, praying for a direction to the respondents not to allot or grant pattas over the subject land to third party beneficiaries. This Court passed interim order on 09.06.2015 restraining the respondents from issuing pattas to third parties. The said order subsists as on today. 7. Heard Sri G.V.Gangadhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the amended draft notification issued under Section 4(1), dated 04.02.2010, and also the draft declaration issued under Section 6, dated 04.02.2010, both of which are published in District Gazette on 06.02.2010 primarily on the ground that without conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, the respondents could not have issued the draft declaration. It is also contended that when the substratum of Section 4(1) notification has changed by omitting the lands which initially were proposed to be acquired and substituted with other parcel of land, for all purposes, the amended notification would become the principal notification and the affected person is entitled to be heard once again by following the mandatory enquiry as stipulated under Section 5-A of the Act. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was initially concluded and the petitioner’s objections were rejected on 30.01.2009, the respondents, instead of proceeding with the proceedings further by issuing draft declaration under Section 6, for obvious reasons, have resorted to negotiations and made the petitioner to submit letter, dated 14.08.2009 for swiping of the lands under acquisition and at any rate, the mere issuance of such letter would not absolve the respondents from adhering to the procedure contemplated under the Act and in the said letter, the petitioner nowhere has expressed any waiver for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the purport of giving such letter can be discernible from Form-III agreement, dated 09.02.2010, as the petitioner was made to believe and sign the same that there would be a consent award, in terms of Section 11(2) r/w. Section 31(2) of the Act r/w. Negotiations Rules, 1992, for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- per acre, merely to avoid and deprive the petitioner of such benefit, the respondents have come up with the impugned amended Section 4(1) notification, which is clearly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 10. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents contends that, firstly, the respondents have meticulously followed the procedure prescribed under the Act for the purpose of acquiring the petitioner land in Survey No.327/3 admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents, therefore, in the absence of any procedural irregularity or impropriety, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality. Elaborating the same, she contended that proper notification was issued under Section 4(1) on 11.12.2008 for acquiring land of the petitioner, though in Survey No.327/2, upon conducting enquiry under Section 5-A, and giving opportunity to the petitioner, the objections raised by him came to be rejected by proceedings, dated 30.01.2009. It was at the request of the petitioner, as can be seen from the letter, dated 14.08.2009, for swiping of the lands and to facilitate and accommodate him, amended draft notification, dated 04.02.2010, was gazetted on 06.02.2010. It was at the request of the petitioner, as can be seen from the letter, dated 14.08.2009, for swiping of the lands and to facilitate and accommodate him, amended draft notification, dated 04.02.2010, was gazetted on 06.02.2010. As enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was already completed and the purpose for which the lands are sought to be acquired remains to be same, though, by virtue of amended notification, the land of the petitioner was originally proposed was swiped with that of other parcel of land, draft declaration under Section 6 came to be issued on the very same day. Thereafter, award enquiry was conducted and even the petitioner has participated in the same and award came to be passed on 03.03.2012 determining the compensation and, thereafter, possession of the land was taken on 13.03.2012. The entire exercise stated above was conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act, therefore, there is no infirmity. 11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further contended that in so far as Form-III agreement is concerned, as the same was not executed by following procedure as contemplated under the Negotiations Rules, 1992, in consultation with the District Level Negotiations Committee, the same has to be treated as non est and invalid. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that it was promised for a compensation of Rs.7.50,000/- per acre which was consented to by the parties and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions, this Court finds that the following issue arises for consideration: “ Whether the amended notification issued under Section 4(1) proposing to acquire a new parcel of land belonging to the petitioner would require fresh enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that the respondents are justified in issuing the amended notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 on the same day i.e. 06.02.2010?” 13. For better appreciation of the issue, Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act are extracted hereunder: “Section 4(1). For better appreciation of the issue, Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act are extracted hereunder: “Section 4(1). Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.- (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. (2) ……” *** “ Section 6. (2) ……” *** “ Section 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose .— (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub- section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made wherever required under section 5-A, sub-section (2): xxxxxx…… (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. (3) ….” 14. Section 4(1) requires the State Government or District Collector to issue a notification setting out the details of land likely to be needed for any public purpose, which to be published in the official gazette or district gazette and two daily newspapers circulated in the locality, besides causing public notice of substance in the locality. Section 4(2) provides for any officer authorised to enter upon and survey, take levels, dig, bore into sub-soil and do all other acts necessary to ascertain that land is suitable for the purpose of acquisition. Section 4(2) provides for any officer authorised to enter upon and survey, take levels, dig, bore into sub-soil and do all other acts necessary to ascertain that land is suitable for the purpose of acquisition. Section 5-A provides that any person interested in the land which has been notified under Section 4(1) to submit objections, such as, for instance, that the land is in fact not needed at all for any purpose or that it is not suitable for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired or that the purpose is not for a public purpose and so on, within 30 days from such date of publication. Every objection so received shall be considered by the Collector by giving opportunity of hearing and upon formation of satisfaction that the land which is required for the stated public purpose, submit report to the appropriate government with necessary recommendations and that the Government shall take a decision on such objections. Later, once the Government is satisfied that the land proposed is needed for the stated public purpose, a declaration to that effect shall be issued under Section 6(1) within one year from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification, Section 6(2) contemplates to publish such declaration in the official gazette or district gazette and two daily newspapers, besides causing public notice of substance in the locality. 15. A notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is, therefore, a condition precedent to the making of a declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6. If the Government takes a decision to make such a notification, and thereafter, takes a decision to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A and declare that the land comprised in the notification is needed for public purpose, thereby, issuing declaration under Section 6, it would not be any departure from the provisions of law, however, only in case the enquiry under Section 5-A is dispensed with, by exercising powers under sub-section (4) of Section 17, there could be simultaneous publication of both preliminary notification and final declaration. 16. In so far as the purport and object of Section 5-A of the Act which provides for hearing of objections of the affected persons, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Darshan Lal Bohra , [2024 SCC Online 1690] , in paras.15 to 18, held as follows: “ 15. 16. In so far as the purport and object of Section 5-A of the Act which provides for hearing of objections of the affected persons, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Darshan Lal Bohra , [2024 SCC Online 1690] , in paras.15 to 18, held as follows: “ 15. The 1894 Act embodies the State’s power of eminent domain, bestowing the sovereign right to appropriate private property for the public good. However, since the Right to Property is a significant Constitutional Right under Article 300A and losing one’s land has grave repercussions for a landowner, the 1894 Act also contains various provisions to compress the State’s power of expropriation from becoming a source of exploitation. One of such salient features is Section 5A, which inter alia provides thus: “5-A. 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 15lavor15zed 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 he deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.” 16. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. (3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall he deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.” 16. It may be seen from the plain language of Section 5A that it manifests the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem, and obligates the Collector to hear the person whose land is being compulsorily acquired by the State. This provision serves as a crucial safeguard, enabling the landowners to challenge the arbitrary acquisition and demonstrate the absence of ‘public purpose’ or presence of mala fide motive. Considering its vital importance, there are a string of decisions by this Court affirming that Section 5A is a mandatory provision with the flavour of fundamental rights. 10 17. Section 5A was not originally a part of the 1894 Act. It was introduced later by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1923, to rectify the defect pointed out in case of J.E.D. Ezra v. Secretary of State for India.The Calcutta High Court in that case expressed its inability to grant relief to the person whose property was being acquired, noting that the 1894 Act did not allow the landowners to raise objections against the acquisition. Consequently, the legislature thought it appropriate to amend the 1894 Act and insert a provision mandating that no declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act shall be issued unless time has been allowed to the ‘persons interested’ in the land to put in their objections. 18. The landowners thus became entitled to lodge their objections within thirty days of the notification published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The Collector is thereafter expected to give an opportunity of hearing to the objectors and make recommendations to the Appropriate Government after thorough consideration of their objections. Importantly, the hearing under Section 5A must be an effective opportunity and not an empty formality. If necessary, the Collector shall also make further enquiries and give final recommendations based on due application of mind. 12 If it is found that there has been total and utter non-compliance with Section 5A, thereby causing severe prejudice to the landowner, the Court shall give such affected person an appropriate remedy and, if feasible, even vitiate the acquisition proceedings.” 17. 12 If it is found that there has been total and utter non-compliance with Section 5A, thereby causing severe prejudice to the landowner, the Court shall give such affected person an appropriate remedy and, if feasible, even vitiate the acquisition proceedings.” 17. In view of the above understanding of the legislative intent, the facts of the present case are analysed as under: 18. As could be seen from both the pleadings in the writ petition and as well as, in particular, additional counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, notifications under Section 4(1) and the subsequent proceedings are issued as stated hereunder: S.No. Details of acquisition proceedings Date 1. Draft notification 11.12.2008 2. Draft notification U/S.4(1) in the District Gazette 15.12.2008 3. Publication of draft notification in The New Indian Express, a daily newspaper 17.12.2008 4. Publication of draft notification in Avineetiki Sankellu, a Telugu daily newspaper 18.12.2008 5. Substance in the Locality 16.01.2009 6. Conduct of Section 5-A enquiry 02.01.2009 7. Section 5-A(2) Order passed by the District Collector, West Godavari District. 30.01.2009 8. Amendment to the draft notification under Section 4(1) published in District Gazette 06.02.2010 9. Draft declaration u/S.6 in the District Gazette 06.02.2010 10. Public of Draft Declaration in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily 11.02.2010 11. Publication of Draft Declaration in Helapuri News Daily 11.02.2010 12. Substance in the locality 05.03.2010 19. From the dates mentioned above, it is clear that initially Section 4(1) draft notification was issued proposing to acquire an extent of Ac.2.23 cents in Survey No.327/2 of Pandithavilluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District, belonging to the petitioner, along with other extent of lands belonging to third parties in Survey No.348/1 admeasuring Ac.0.38 cents and in Survey No.348/2 admeasuring Ac.0.62 cents. The said notification was published in the District Gazette and also in two daily newspapers as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act. Enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted and after hearing various objections raised by the petitioner, the Collector has passed orders under Section 5A(2) of the Act on 30.01.2009 rejecting the same and recommending for acquisition of the said land. Enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted and after hearing various objections raised by the petitioner, the Collector has passed orders under Section 5A(2) of the Act on 30.01.2009 rejecting the same and recommending for acquisition of the said land. In the normal course, the immediate step that the respondents should have initiated was to issue draft declaration under Section 6, rather than doing so, basing on petitioner’s letter requesting to acquire the land in Survey No.327/3 than the one as notified in Survey No.327/2, negotiations were undertaken and an agreement in Form-III, dated 09.02.2010, was executed, as a consent award in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act. For reasons unknown, the respondents resumed the land acquisition proceedings and issued the impugned amended notification under Section 4(1), dated 04.02.2010, substituting the Survey No.327/2 admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents with Survey No.327/3 admeasuring Ac.2.23 cents belonging to the petitioner. Simultaneously, the respondents have also issued draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the same day i.e. 04.02.2010, however, only the draft declaration was published in the District Gazette on 06.02.2010 and in two daily newspapers on 11.02.2010, besides causing public notice of substance. The record does not disclose that the amended draft notification, dated 04.02.2010 was though gazetted whether published in two daily newspapers besides causing public notice of substance in the locality. Later, it appears that award enquiry was conducted and an award came to be passed on 03.03.2012, determining the compensation for Rs.9,05,212/- and which was deposited before the Reference Court on 07.03.2012. The respondents stated to have taken possession of the land on 13.03.2012, after this Court has passed status quo orders on 13.06.2011 in W.P. No.15899 of 2011, which has been seriously disputed by the petitioner. 20. From the aforesaid undisputed facts, the petitioner land in Survey No.327/2 was sought to be acquired under the revised draft notification, dated 11.12.2008, however, after conclusion of enquiry under Section 5-A, the respondents have decided to acquire different parcel of land, though belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.327/3, for which, the respondents have apparently issued amendment to the draft notification on 04.02.2010. This amendment to the revised draft notification, dated 11.12.2008, introduced a different and new parcel of land under acquisition. The respondents proceeded further and issued draft declaration, dated 04.02.2010, which was published in the gazette on 06.02.2010. This amendment to the revised draft notification, dated 11.12.2008, introduced a different and new parcel of land under acquisition. The respondents proceeded further and issued draft declaration, dated 04.02.2010, which was published in the gazette on 06.02.2010. Admittedly, this draft declaration did not precede with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act qua the inclusion of new parcel of land in Survey No.327/3. This Court also notices that the amendment to the draft notification was only published in the district gazette, and respondents have neither pleaded nor placed on record whether the same has been published in two daily newspapers and caused public notice of substance in the locality, as required under Section 4(1) of the Act. 21. Now the point for consideration is, as to whether the prior enquiry conducted under Section 5-A pursuant to the draft notification, dated 11.12.2008, would suffice and satisfy the legislative mandate enshrined under Section 5-A, even if an amendment is made to the draft notification introducing a new parcel of land though belonging to the same person, who is figuring in the first notification. 22. The authoritative pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, including the one referred supra, have clearly held that language of Section 5-A manifests the cardinal principle of audi alteram partem, and obligates the Collector to hear the person whose land is being compulsorily acquired by the State, which was held to be mandatory with the flavour of a fundamental right. The land owners, therefore, were entitled to object to the draft notification and objections may vary touching upon the purpose of acquisition, whether it involves an element of public purpose, whether the land is feasible and suitable for the purpose for which it is sought to be acquired and there can be many other factors which required to be considered at that stage. It has been enunciated that the enquiry should not be a mere formality rather must be an effective opportunity and that the Collector has to really make sound application of mind and any shortcoming of the same was considered to be a severe lapse vitiating the entire acquisition proceedings. The only exception for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is by resorting to exercise of power under sub-section (4) of Section 17 i.e. invoking urgency clause. The only exception for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is by resorting to exercise of power under sub-section (4) of Section 17 i.e. invoking urgency clause. In all other cases, except invocation of such urgency clause, it is mandatory that the procedure contemplated under Section 5-A has to necessarily be followed. 23. In the present case, enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted on 02.01.2009 and orders under Section 5A (2) were passed by the Collector on 30.01.2009. However, this enquiry was confined only to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner in Survey No.327/2 along with other lands belonging to third parties. When the respondents have thought to swipe and include into acquisition a new parcel of land in Survey No.327/3, instead of Survey No.327/2, the mere amendment to draft notification under Section 4(1) would not suffice to proceed further with the issuance of the draft declaration under Section 6, without conducting enquiry under Section 5-A. As enquiry under Section 5-A is held to be mandatory, the inclusion of new parcel of land by way of amendment to draft notification substantially changes and alters the rights of the land owner, the statutory right conferred under Section 5-A cannot be defeated by making it an empty formality. The enquiry that was conducted earlier can only be looked from the perspective of land that was sought to be acquired under the unamended draft notification and any changes made thereafter, since substantive rights of the land owner are affected and such rights are recognized to be constitutional rights, the respondents are bound to once again conduct enquiry under Section 5-A by following the procedure contemplated therein. 24. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents contended that the amendment was carried out only at the instance of the petitioner, who had by letter, dated 14.08.2009, requested for swiping of the lands, therefore, the same amounts to acceptance and, therefore, having regard to Section 5-A enquiry having already been conducted, there is no requirement for further enquiry as the purpose of acquisition remained to be the same. 25. 25. The said submission at first blush appears to be convincing, but, a close scrutiny of the letter, dated 14.08.2009, submitted by the petitioner, merely indicates that the petitioner has given a proposal for considering acquisition of his land in Survey No.327/3 instead of land in Survey No.327/2, however, he never gave any concession regarding the manner and method of acquiring the said land. The record also discloses that the respondents simultaneously have negotiated with the petitioner to acquire the land in Survey No.327/3 by way of negotiations and also concluded Form-III agreement, on 09.02.2010, which was supposed to be a consent award for Rs.7,50,000/- per acre. Later, the same was not acted upon and rather they proceeded with the issuance of amendment to draft notification. In the additional counter-affidavit, the respondents have though pleaded that Form-III agreement executed was not valid, binding and cannot be acted upon in as much as it was not concluded in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Negotiations Rules, 1992, and with the involvement of the District Level Negotiations Committee, they did not dispute the factum of holding negotiations and signing the said agreement. Be that as it may, as this Court is not enquiring into the legality or otherwise of such negotiations and entering of Form-III agreement, the fact remains that respondents have initially tried to acquire the land in Survey No.327/3 by way of negotiations and later decided to acquire it by following due process of law. But, however, the respondents instead of initiating fresh proceedings for acquiring the said land chose to amend the draft notification already issued, by substituting the land what has already been notified for the purpose of acquisition with new parcel of land. Such course of amendment definitely tantamount to acquiring new parcel of land for which the respondents are required to initiate steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act afresh. Such course of amendment definitely tantamount to acquiring new parcel of land for which the respondents are required to initiate steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act afresh. Even if the amendment made to draft notification were to be sustained, such amendment to the notification amounts to substantial amendment, but not one issued for rectifying mere clerical or typographical errors, thereby the same is required to be published in the State or District Gazette and two daily newspapers, besides causing public notice of substance in the locality, as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act followed by enquiry under Section 5-A and only, thereafter, draft declaration under Section 6(1) should be issued. 26. The mandatory requirement of compliance of Section 4(1) of the Act was considered in Collector (D.M.) v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, [ (1985) 3 SCC 1 ] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there are two requirements for issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the first, being that the same requires to be published in official gazette and the second that the acquiring authority should cause public notice of substance of such notification in a convenient place in the locality, both being cumulative and mandatory requirements. This view has been consistently followed in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala v. State of Maharashtra,[ (2012) 6 SCC 348 ]. 27. In Somawanti v. State of Punjab ,[ AIR 1963 SC 151 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 23 : (1963) 2 SCR 774 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question as to whether notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(1) could be issued simultaneously held as under: “….. It is pointed out that under sub-section (1) of Section 4 the Government has first to notify that a particular land “is likely to be needed for a public purpose”. Thereafter under Section 5-A a person interested in the land has a right to object to the acquisition and the whole question has to be finally considered and decided by the Government after hearing such person. It is only thereafter that in a normal case the Government is entitled to make a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 6 declaring that it is satisfied “after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub- section (2)” that the land is required for a public purpose. It is only thereafter that in a normal case the Government is entitled to make a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 6 declaring that it is satisfied “after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub- section (2)” that the land is required for a public purpose. This is the sequence in which the notifications have to be made. The reason why the sequence has to be followed is to make it clear that the Government has applied its mind to all the relevant facts and then come to a decision or arrived at its satisfaction even in a case where the provisions of Section 5- A need not be complied with. Undoubtedly the law requires that notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 must be made only after the Government is satisfied that a particular land is required for a public purpose. Undoubtedly also where the Government has not directed under sub-section (4) of Section 17 that the provisions of Section 5-A need not be complied with the two notifications, that is, under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (1) of Section 6 cannot be made simultaneously. But it seems to us that where there is an emergency by reason of which the State Government directs under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act that the provisions of Section 5-A need not be complied with, the whole matter, that is, the actual requirement of the land for a public purpose must necessarily have been considered at the earliest stage itself that is when it was decided that compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A be dispensed with. It is, therefore, difficult, to see why the two notifications cannot, in such a case, be made simultaneously. A notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is a condition precedent to the making of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6. If the Government, therefore, takes a decision to make such a notification and, thereafter, takes two further decisions, that is, to dispense with compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A and also to declare that the land comprised in the notification is in fact needed for a public purpose, there is no departure from any provision of the law even though the two notifications are published on the same day. ….” 28. ….” 28. In view of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above, the respondents though have issued amendment to the draft notification on 04.02.2010, which was published in the district gazette on 06.02.2010, the same is also mandated to be published in two daily newspapers and cause public notice of the substance of the notification in the locality, which was not done, both conditions being mandatory. Further, except for publication of the gazette, the respondents have not conducted enquiry under Section 5-A and issued simultaneous publication of declaration under Section 6(1) on the same day i.e. on 06.02.2010, which apparently could have been done only in case of invoking urgency clause under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, which is not so in the present case. 29. This Court also finds that the impugned amendment to the draft notification and consequential proceedings suffer from illegality yet on another ground. The draft notification was published by way of causing public notice of substance in the locality to be the last one on 16.01.2009 and draft declaration under Section 6(1) was published in the district gazette on 06.02.2010. The last date of publication of Section 4(1) notification has to be considered for the purpose of determining the period of one year stipulated under the second proviso to sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act for declaration to be within time. This requirement and computation of one year period has been well considered in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana , [ (2007) 3 SCC 470 ] and later in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar, (2012) 12 SCC 443 . 30. In Anil Kumar Gupta ,[ (2012) 12 SCC 443 ] one of the issues raised was whether declaration issued under first proviso (ii) of Section 6(1) was valid, as it was issued beyond one year as prescribed in Section 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the draft declaration under Section 6(1) was non est and observed in paras 18 and 19 as under: “1 8. We may now advert to the main question as to whether the declaration issued under Section 6(1) was a nullity because the same was issued after expiry of the period of one year specified in the first proviso (ii) to that section. We may now advert to the main question as to whether the declaration issued under Section 6(1) was a nullity because the same was issued after expiry of the period of one year specified in the first proviso (ii) to that section. This issue is no longer res integra and must be treated as settled by the judgments of this Court in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N. [ (2002) 3 SCC 533 ], Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana [ (2007) 3 SCC 470 ] and a recent judgment in Devender Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. [ (2011) 9 SCC 164 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 542] In Padma Sundara Rao case [ (2002) 3 SCC 533 ] the Constitution Bench unequivocally held that the second proviso to Section 6(1) is mandatory and a declaration issued beyond the period of one year from the last publication of the notification issued under Section 4(1) is nullity. In view of the proposition laid down in these judgments, it must be held that the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the declaration issued under Section 6(1) was non est. 19. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the corrigendum dated 1-7-1994 and argued that if the period of one year is counted from the date of corrigendum then the declaration issued under Section 6(1) cannot be treated as beyond the period of one year. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for two reasons. Firstly, it has not been shown whether the corrigendum had been published in the manner prescribed under Section 4(1). Secondly, the corrigendum was issued only for correcting the typographical mistakes in the gazette publication of the notification issued under Section 4(1). Such corrigendum will relate back to the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) was issued and the same cannot be relied upon for recording a finding that the declaration under Section 6(1) was issued within the period prescribed under the first proviso (ii) to that section.” (underlying by this Court) 31. Such corrigendum will relate back to the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) was issued and the same cannot be relied upon for recording a finding that the declaration under Section 6(1) was issued within the period prescribed under the first proviso (ii) to that section.” (underlying by this Court) 31. Apparently, in the present case, the respondents have pleaded in their counter-affidavit at para.11 as follows: “… The publication of 4(1) on 06.02.2010 was only a corrigendum to the original 4(1) notification dt.11.12.2008.….” Upon going through the aforementioned statement, if the draft notification under Section 4(1) has to be construed as one issued originally, the substance of such notification being published in the locality lastly on 16.01.2009, period of one year would end by 15.01.2010. The draft declaration under Section 6(1) was published in the district gazette on 06.02.2010, which is clearly after one year, therefore, even on this count the proceedings are vitiated and the declaration so made and the consequential award would be non est. 32. This Court finds that the respondents have neither published the impugned amended notification in the two daily newspapers and caused public notice of substance nor conducted enquiry under Section 5-A qua proposing acquisition of land in Survey No.327/3, hence, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. 33. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and amended draft notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration issued under Section 6 on 06.02.2010 proposing to acquire the petitioner land in Survey No.327/3 to an extent of Ac.2.23 cents of Pandithavilluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District, and the consequential award, dated 03.03.2012, are set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if they so desire. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.