Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.31263 of 2016 dated 16.09.2016. The appellants herein filed W.P. No.31263 of 2016 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the notification issued by the Joint Collector cum Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ananthapuramu under Section 11, and the declaration issued by him under Section 19, of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called the 2013 Act), published in Eenadu Telugu daily on 12.04.2016, and Sakshi Telugu daily on 22.07.2016, in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2. W.P. No.31263 of 2016 was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge holding that the appellants-writ petitioners did not object regarding social impact assessment in both the representations/objections; the crux of the matter was that, after construction of the canal, the total land, except the building area, would become unusable for house/residential construction; they had sought compensation for the total area of Ac.2.16 cents; and there was no occasion before the Special Deputy Collector/Competent Authority, as prescribed under Section 15 of the 2013 Act, to consider and grant a personal hearing to the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

3. Before taking note of the rival submissions, urged on behalf of the appellants by Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and on behalf of the respondents by the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, it is necessary to note the facts in brief. The preliminary notification, under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act, was issued on 12.04.2016 proposing to acquire the subject lands. This notification was published in Eenadu Telugu Daily on 12.04.2016. A notice, under Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act, is said to have been served on the petitioners who submitted their representations-objections by their letter dated 23.06.2016. Thereafter a declaration, under Section 19 of the 2013 Act, came to be passed on 11.07.2016. It is, however, not in dispute that no award has been passed in so far as the appellants- writ petitioners lands are concerned.

4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants- writ-petitioners, would submit that the subject project did not have environmental clearance when the preliminary notification, under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act, was issued; the earlier environmental clearance, granted by the Government of India in its letter dated 08.05.2006, had expired long before the preliminary notification was issued on 12.04.2016; the State Government has failed to conduct a social impact assessment study as stipulated under Sections 6(1) and (2) of the 2013 Act; against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in State of A.P. v. Mummaneni Venkataramudu,(Judgment in W.A. No.933 of 2017 dated 29.12.2017) the matter was carried in appeal and the Supreme Court, by its order in SLP No.3371 of 2018 dated 05.02.2018, stayed the operation of the judgment and order passed in W.A. No.933 of 2017 dated 29.12.2017; since, admittedly, no social impact assessment study was conducted, the impugned notification issued under Section 11(1), and the subsequent declaration issued under Section 19(1), of the 2013 Act must be set aside; even otherwise, the petitioners objections, made under Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act, has not been considered; the appellants-Writ Petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing as mandated by Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act; as a final decision, on the objections raised by the appellants under Section 15(1), is required to be taken by the appropriate Government, it is only if the Joint Collector had given the petitioners an opportunity of a personal hearing, as stipulated in Section 15(2), could they have satisf