JUDGMENT

ORDER:—After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we find that it is not a fit case for interference. It is seen that admittedly a notice was issued under Section 5A to the peititoner on July 18, 1991 calling upon the petitioner to submit his written objections, if any, and it was stated specifically in the notice thus:

"Therefore, you are hereby informed that if you have any objection in respect of acquisition of this land pursuant to the resolutions under the said Act, you shall, personally or through your authorised person or Advocate, make representation in that respect to the office of the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer Shri Vyas within 30 days from the date of the publication of this public notice and the time of producing objections, the facts stated by you or your advocate shall also be heard."

2. The petitioner was informed that if he had any objection in respect of the acquisition of his land, pursuant to the notification under the said Act, he should, personally or through his authorised representative or Advocate, make representation in that behalf to the Deputy Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer Shri Vyas, within 30 days from the date of the publication of the public notice. At the time of producing objections for the facts stated by him, his authorised representative or himself or his advocate would also be heard. Pursuant thereto, admittedly, the petitioner had sent his objections by post. But he did not personally appear nor appeared through an advocate. The objections had been considered and a report had been submitted to the State Government. Pursuant thereto, after considering the report, the declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1/1980 as amended under Art.68/1984 was published on July 16,1992 as per the procedure prescribed therein.

3. The petitioner filed writ petition in the High Court challenging the notification published under Section 4(1) on July 25,1991 and also the declaration. The principal contention raised in the High Court was that since no personal hearing had been given to the petitioner, it is violative of sub-section (2) of S.5A of the Act. Sub-section (2) contemplates thus:

"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 authorised 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 proceeding held by him, for the decision of that Government). The decision of the (appropriate Government) on the objections shall be final.

(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."

4. The High Court has considered the matter and recorded its finding thus:

"The undisputed fact is that after objections had been filed in writing by the petitioner, no formal notice was issued fixing a date for hearing of the said objection. On the facts of this case, the question arises is whether provisions of Section 5A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act should be taken to have been compiled with when notice of 18th July,1991 postulated that at the time of pro