Order : SANJAY K.AGRAWAL, J. 1. Two petitioners herein (petitioner No.2 died and her name has been deleted) have filed the instant writ petition calling in question legality, validity and correctness of notification dated 3-7-2010 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) and also notification dated 6-9-2010 issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and eventually seeks to quash the order dated 26-8-2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Raigarh, on the ground that while making acquisition Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 has not been followed in its letter and spirit and the land has not been acquired for public purpose. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:- 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands bearing Khasra Nos.230/1, 372 & 373/2B and Khasra Nos.375 & 376, total area admeasuring 1.417 hectare, was sought to be acquired for private purpose. It is the further case of the petitioner that the land is sought to be acquired for a private company/ respondent No.6 which cannot be said to be the public purpose. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 herein issued notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of land for industrial purpose vide Annexure P-1 and immediately after issuance of the said notification, objection under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 was filed by the petitioner, however, the Land Acquisition Officer whose power has been conferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) heard the matter, but did not make any recommendation to the appropriate Government under Section 5A(2) and himself has disposed of the objection in terms of reply dated 13-8-2010 filed by the General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Raigarh, as such, neither recommendation was made under Section 5A(2) to the appropriate Government nor decision has been taken by the appropriate Government, therefore, the entire proceeding and subsequent notice is vitiated. It is also the case of the petitioner that the same company (respondent No.6) for which the lands have been acquired has purchased lands from the private owners on higher rates in the close vicinity of the lands of the petitioners and subsequently, lands of the petitioners are sought to be taken for the alleged public purpose. It is also the case of the petitioner that the same company (respondent No.6) for which the lands have been acquired has purchased lands from the private owners on higher rates in the close vicinity of the lands of the petitioners and subsequently, lands of the petitioners are sought to be taken for the alleged public purpose. Furthermore, the resolution of the Gram Panchayat regarding the periphery within which the lands are to be acquired have been ignored and violated while taking lands of the petitioner for acquisition. It is also the case of the petitioner that the lands of the petitioner are agricultural lands as per the revenue records in khasra entries having crop of paddy over it, however, at the time of preparing documents for acquisition, the same has been considered and mentioned to be land of type TIKARA, which is devaluating the lands of the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, the writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of notifications under Sections 4(1) & 6 of the Act of 1894 and also seeking quashment of order dated 26-8-2010 rejecting the objection. 4. Return has been filed by respondents No.1 to 4/State stating inter alia that the acquisition process was carried out strictly in accordance with law and as per the provisions contained in the Act of 1894. It is further submitted that the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) acting as the Land Acquisition Officer duly considered the objections raised by the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and after providing opportunity of hearing and considering all relevant issues, passed reasoned order dated 26-8-2010 addressing concerns related to compensation, rehabilitation and employment, and thus all procedural safeguards mandated under the Act of 1894 have been complied with in fair and objective manner. The State has also filed documents along with the return stating that power under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 to hear objection has been conferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) vide notification dated 6-3-1987 and that is the reason that the SDO has heard the objection in place of the Collector and furthermore, notification dated 3-9-2003 has been filed which states that power of the appropriate Government has been conferred to the Collector, therefore, in place of the appropriate Government, the Collector has taken decision on the alleged recommendation made by the SDO. 5. 5. Respondent No.6 – Korba West Power Company Limited, Raigarh, now Adani Power Limited, has filed return stating inter alia that the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 for acquisition of the subject lands were initiated by the Office of the Collector, Raigarh on 16-7-2010 and notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 3-9-2010. It has been further stated that the landowners, whose lands were proposed to be acquired, filed detailed objections before the SDO(R) on various dates and the General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Raigarh, has submitted replies to the said objections and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-SDO(R) heard the objections and forwarded the same to the Collector for further proceedings under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and thereafter, notification under Section 6 was published on 1-10-2010 and subsequently the award was passed and land was sought to be acquired for industrial purpose. It has also been stated that the State Government has acquired the subject lands for a public purpose and compensation was paid from public funds. Thereafter, the lands were agreed to be leased to the respondent Company for the purpose of setting up a coal based thermal power plant in accordance with the prevailing industrial policy. According to this policy, the Government acquired the land and transferred it to Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC), which, in turn, executed a lease deed in favour of the respondent Company and lease deed was executed on 14-3-2011 for approximately 91.305 hectares of land and as such, the acquisition is strictly in accordance with law. 6. Respondent No.7 CSIDC has also filed return supporting the acquisition made by the State Government for industrial purpose stating inter alia that acquisition has been made strictly in accordance with law and no interference is called for. 7. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the lands in question are irrigated lands and the petitioner is willing to continue his livelihood by irrigating the aforesaid lands. 7. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the lands in question are irrigated lands and the petitioner is willing to continue his livelihood by irrigating the aforesaid lands. He would further submit that the petitioners’ objections were not considered in accordance with Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 and the Collector-cum- Land Acquisition Officer did not make any recommendation on their objections and straightway decided the objections himself and, therefore, the appropriate Government whose power has been delegated to the Collector did not have an opportunity to consider their objections and without there being any recommendation, proceeded to pass order and issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894 which is illegal and bad in law. As such, the order has been passed in violation of Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj and others , [ (2014) 6 SCC 564 ] (relevant paragraphs 15 to 17), Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal and others , [ (2017) 11 SCC 601 ] (relevant paragraphs 94 to 99), Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Abhishek Gupta etc. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2991 (relevant paragraph 14) and Lajja Ram and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others , [ (2013) 11 SCC 235 ] (relevant paragraphs 19 to 26) in support of his contention. 8. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4, would submit that the acquisition has been made strictly in accordance with law and the SDO(R) acting as Land Acquisition Officer has duly considered the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and after affording opportunity of hearing and considering all relevant issues passed reasoned order addressing concerns related to compensation, rehabilitation and employment and as such, the grounds raised under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 are not made out in favour of the petitioners. He would further submit that nature and purpose of acquisition is industrial purpose and not for a Company. The land was acquired by the State and thereafter, allotted to the CSIDC and thereafter, it was leased out to respondent No.6 Company. He would further submit that nature and purpose of acquisition is industrial purpose and not for a Company. The land was acquired by the State and thereafter, allotted to the CSIDC and thereafter, it was leased out to respondent No.6 Company. The appropriateness of such acquisition by the State for industrial or public purposes has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector , [ (2008) 9 SCC 552 ] . He would also submit that the land is not acquired for a company, as the entire compensation has been paid by the State instrumentality. The writ petition suffers from delay, acquiescence and public interest considerations and as such, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 Company, would submit that the land has been given to respondent No.6 Company by respondent No.7 CSIDC on lease and no amount of compensation has been paid by respondent No.6. 10.Mr. Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 CSIDC, would submit that the entire cost of acquisition has been paid by CSIDC/respondent No.7 herein, and the land has been acquired for industrial purpose by respondent No.7 which has been given to respondent No.6 on lease, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 12.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, the sole question that arises for consideration is, whether the provisions contained in Section 5A of the Act of 1894 have been followed in its letter and spirit by the Land Acquisition Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)? 13.In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894, which states as under: - “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 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 proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.” 14.Section 5A of the Act of 1894 is in two parts. First part i.e. sub-section (1) of Section 5A deals with filing objection by the “person interested” defined in Section 3(b) of the Act of 1894, 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 within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification and may object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. Second part i.e. sub-section (2) of Section 5A deals with objections. It mandates that every objection to the Collector shall be made 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 upon receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make such further inquiry as he may think necessary whereupon he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in respect of the land which is the subject-matter of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. The said report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. The said report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government must precede a proper application of mind on the part of the Government. The State is required to apply its mind not only on the objections filed by the owner of the land but also on the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making other and further enquiries therefor as also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. It is open to the State Government to make further inquiry into the matter, if any case is made out therefor, for arriving at its own satisfaction that it is necessary to deprive a citizen of his right to property. 15.It is appropriate to mention here that by notification dated 6-3-1987, power and jurisdiction to hear objection has been conferred to the SDO and similarly, power of the appropriate Government has been conferred to the Collector vide notification dated 3-9-2003. 16.In the matter of Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. , [ AIR 1964 SC 1217 ] , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the right to file objections under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 is a substantial right when a person’s property is being threatened with acquisition. 17.In the matter of Munshi Singh v. Union of India , [ (1973) 2 SCC 337 ] , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have highlighted the importance of the rule of hearing embodied in Section 5A of the Act of 1894 by observing as under: - “7. Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made. We may refer to the observation of this court in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1964 SC 1217 : (1964) 3 SCR 425 ] that the right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition and that right cannot be taken away as if by a side wind. Sub- section (2) of Section 5-A makes it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and making further inquiry he is to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on the objections. The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections is then final. The declaration under Section 6 has to be made after the appropriate Government is satisfied, on a consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections.” 18.Subsequently, in the matter of State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh , [ (1980) 2 SCC 471 ] , it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that while making compulsory acquisition of land, denial of administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons and observed as under:- “16. … it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man’s property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre- emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons.” 19.In the matter of Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India and others , [ (2013) 1 SCC 403 ] , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the earlier decisions and held that hearing contemplated under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 to a person who is sought to be deprived of his land and who has filed objections under Section 5A(1) must be effective and not an empty formality. It has been further held that it is the substantive right of the landowners and/or other interested persons to file objections. Their Lordships observed as under: - “84. What needs to be emphasised is that hearing required to be given under Section 5-A(2) to a person who is sought to be deprived of his land and who has filed objections under Section 5-A(1) must be effective and not an empty formality. The Collector who is enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors has the freedom of making further enquiry as he may think necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make report in respect of the land notified under Section 4(1) or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections and submit the same to the appropriate Government along with the record of proceedings held by him for the latter's decision. The appropriate Government is obliged to consider the report, if any, made under Section 5-A(2) and then record its satisfaction that the particular land is needed for a public purpose. This exercise culminates into making a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration is to be signed by a Secretary to the Government or some other officer duly authorised to certify its orders. The formation of opinion on the issue of need of land for a public purpose and suitability thereof is sine qua non for issue of a declaration under Section 6(1). Any violation of the substantive right of the landowners and/or other interested persons to file objections or denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the objector(s) vitiates the recommendations made by the Collector and the decision taken by the appropriate Government on such recommendations. The recommendations made by the Collector without duly considering the objections filed under Section 5-A(1) and submissions made at the hearing given under Section 5-A(2) or failure of the appropriate Government to take objective decision on such objections in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector will denude the decision of the appropriate Government of statutory finality. The recommendations made by the Collector without duly considering the objections filed under Section 5-A(1) and submissions made at the hearing given under Section 5-A(2) or failure of the appropriate Government to take objective decision on such objections in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector will denude the decision of the appropriate Government of statutory finality. To put it differently, the satisfaction recorded by the appropriate Government that the particular land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration made under Section 6(1) will be devoid of legal sanctity if statutorily engrafted procedural safeguards are not adhered to by the authorities concerned or there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The cases before us are illustrative of flagrant violation of the mandate of Sections 5-A(2) and 6(1). Therefore, the second question is answered in the affirmative.” 20.In Lajja Ram (supra), Surinder Singh Brar (supra) has been considered and it has been held that sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act of 1894 envisages the rule of audi alteram partem and makes it sine qua non to the acquisition proceedings under the Act, and it has been observed as under: - “19. … Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A envisages the rule of audi alteram partem and makes it sine qua non to the acquisition proceedings under the Act. It mandates the LAO to first provide an opportunity of hearing to the objector(s) in respect of their objections to the acquisition of lands notified under Section 4(1) of the Act. The LAO or the Collector may also conduct a further enquiry in this regard, if he deems it necessary, and thereafter decide upon the objections raised by such objector(s) and submit his recommendations to the State Government in the form of a report, on the basis of which the State Government is to formulate its opinion in respect of acquisition of lands notified under Section 4(1) of the Act and issue appropriate notification under Section 6 of the Act. The purpose is to afford an opportunity of making representation to the aggrieved person before any order, which may adversely affect his interest in any immovable property, may be passed by the LAO and subsequent notification be issued by the State Government. 25. The purpose is to afford an opportunity of making representation to the aggrieved person before any order, which may adversely affect his interest in any immovable property, may be passed by the LAO and subsequent notification be issued by the State Government. 25. In our considered opinion, before passing the said order, opportunity of hearing ought to have been granted to the landowners who have immovable property rights in the lands acquired. Since that has not been done, the action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the statutory provisions and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 26. In view of the above, we set aside the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act by the State Government qua the petitioners only. However, we permit the State Government and its authorities, if they so desire, to proceed from the stage from which we have pointed out the mistake/defect in the course of acquisition proceedings insofar as the lands of the appellants. We clarify that the award in respect of other lands shall stand as it is and is not disturbed.” 21.Similarly, in Shiv Raj’s case (supra), it has been held that the limited right given to an owner/person interested under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 to object to the acuqisition proceedings is not an empty formality and is a substantive right, and observed as under: - “15. Therefore, Section 5-A of the 1894 Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind having due regard to the relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision- making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the 1894 Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions, contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. The State in its decision- making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the 1894 Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions, contained in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. Thus, the limited right given to an owner/person interested under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act to object to the acquisition proceedings is not an empty formality and is a substantive right, which can be taken away only for good and valid reason and within the limitations prescribed under Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act. 16. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty-bound to objectively consider the arguments advanced by the objector and make recommendations, duly supported by brief reasons, as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector should reflect objective application of mind to the entire record including the objections filed by the interested persons. [See Munshi Singh v. Union of India [ (1973) 2 SCC 337 ], Union of India v. Mukesh Hans [ (2004) 8 SCC 14 ], Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [ (2005) 7 SCC 627 : AIR 2005 SC 3520 ], Anand Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2010) 11 SCC 242 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 423], Dev Sharan v. State of U.P. [ (2011) 4 SCC 769 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 483], Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana [ (2012) 1 SCC 792 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 402], Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [ (2013) 4 SCC 210 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 556] and Women's Education Trust v. State of Haryana [ (2013) 8 SCC 99 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 721].]” 22.Similarly, in Kedar Nath Yadav (supra), relying upon the decision in the matter of Babu Ram v. State of Haryana , (2009) 10 SCC 115 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 69 it has been held that a right under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and observed as under: - “97. In Babu Ram v. State of Haryana [ (2009) 10 SCC 115 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 69], this Court observed as under : (SCC p. 122, para 30) “30. As indicated hereinabove in the various cases cited by Mr Pradip Ghosh and, in particular, the decision in Krishan Lal Arneja case [Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja, (2004) 8 SCC 453 ], in which reference has been made to the observations made by this Court in Om Prakash case [Om Prakash v. State of U.P., (1998) 6 SCC 1 ], it has been emphasised that a right under Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Such observations had been made in reference to an observation made in the earlier decision in Gurdial Singh case [ State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh , (1980) 2 SCC 471 ] and keeping in mind the fact that right to property was no longer a fundamental right, an observation was made that even if the right to property was no longer a fundamental right, the observations relating to Article 14 would continue to apply in full force with regard to Section 5-A of the LA Act.” (emphasis supplied) 98. From a perusal of the proceedings before the Collector, which are made available to this Court, it becomes clear that the same have been rejected without assigning any clear reasons or application of mind. Thus, the report of the Collector is not a valid report in the eye of the law. The State Government has mechanically accepted the same without application of mind independently before issuing the notification under Section 6 of the LA Act declaring that the lands are required for establishment of automobile industry by TML.” 23.Very recently, in Abhishek Gupta’s case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the scheme of Section 5A of the Act of 1894 and held that Section 5A codifies the fundamental safeguard of audi alteram partem by which landowners have the opportunity to demonstrate that the acquisition is against public purpose or marred by mala fides and it has been further held that Section 5A envisions a modus of deliberation and consultation, which must therefore be construed to be mandatory, akin to a right. It has been observed by their Lordships as under: - “13. It has been observed by their Lordships as under: - “13. It would be pertinent to understand the object that Section 5A of the 1894 Act seeks to fulfil. A plain reading of the provision indicates that it codifies the fundamental safeguard of audi altrem partem. Landowners have the opportunity to demonstrate that the acquisition is against public purpose or marred by mala fides. In the event the landowner presents a cogent case, the appropriate government may exempt such land from acquisition. By enabling landowners to put forward their perspective and elucidate their remonstrances, Section 5A envisions a modus of deliberation and consultation, which must therefore be construed to be mandatory, akin to a right. [Women's Education Trust v. State of Haryana, (2013) 8 SCC 99 , para 1.] 14. Objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act most often proceed in four distinct stages: i. The filing stage : Landowners can file objections within thirty days of the notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; , [Section 5A (1), 1894 Act.] ii. The hearing stage : The Collector must provide an oral hearing to the objecting landowners, either in person or through a pleader/authorized representative; , [NOIDA v. Darshan Lal Bora, 2024 INS 508.] iii. The recommendation stage : The Collector—after hearing objections and upon further inquiry—makes a report to the appropriate government containing their recommendations; and iv. The hearing stage : The Collector must provide an oral hearing to the objecting landowners, either in person or through a pleader/authorized representative; , [NOIDA v. Darshan Lal Bora, 2024 INS 508.] iii. The recommendation stage : The Collector—after hearing objections and upon further inquiry—makes a report to the appropriate government containing their recommendations; and iv. The decision stage : The appropriate government considers the Collector's report and takes a final decision on the objections.” 24.Coming to the facts of the present case, it is quite evident that in the instant case, objections were filed under Section 5A(1) of the Act of 1894 to the SDO(R) being the authority under Section 5A in place of Collector, as power has been delegated to him upon which the Land Acquisition Officer sought reply of the District Trade and Industries Centre, Raigarh, on the objections of the petitioners, which was replied by the General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Raigarh on 13-8-2010 duly recorded by the SDO(R)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer in his order dated 17-8-2010 and thereafter, the SDO(R) heard the counsel for the petitioners herein/objectors on 26-8-2010 and rejected the objections of the petitioners in terms of letter dated 13-8-2010, vide order dated 26-8-2010, which states as under: - 25.A careful perusal of order dated 26-8-2010 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer would show that on objection filed by the petitioners/landowners within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification, the Land Acquisition Officer/ SDO(R) has afforded oral hearing to the petitioners/objectors through his Advocate in terms of Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894. But, however, it appears that after hearing on the objections, no further enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer did not make report in respect of the land which has been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, and did not 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, and himself decided the objections on his own that too in terms of reply dated 13-8-2010 filed by the District Trade and Industries Centre. As such, Stage-I of Section 5A proceedings i.e. objection has been filed by the landowners within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notification and Stage-II i.e. the objection has been heard by the Land Acquisition Officer through the Advocate, but did not make any recommendation after hearing the objection and did not make any enquiry and did not make any report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objection along with the record of the proceedings held by him, and himself has taken decision on the objections so filed by the petitioners. A perusal of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer would show that objections have been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer without making any recommendation and without making any further inquiry which smacks non- application of mind, as the report of the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer is sine qua non so that the appropriate Government, in this case the Collector, should have taken a decision under Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1894 before issuing notification under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894 declaring that the lands are required for industrial purpose. As such, before issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, no recommendation has been made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the appropriate Government against the lands of the petitioners who have immovable property rights in the lands sought to be acquired and therefore the appropriate Government (Collector being the delegated authority) had no occasion to consider the objection/recommendation made by the SDO(R) and without having any report from the SDO(R), proceeded to issue notification under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894, which is absolutely illegal. Therefore, action of the respondents is not only contrary to the statutory provisions, but also in violation of the principles of natural justice, even it is in violation of the statutory and fundamental rights of the petitioners. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the provisions contained in Section 5A of the Act of 1894 have not been followed in its letter and spirit while making the subject acquisition of the petitioners’ property, as the right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the provisions contained in Section 5A of the Act of 1894 have not been followed in its letter and spirit while making the subject acquisition of the petitioners’ property, as the right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 26.Consequently, the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and order dated 26-8-2010 rejecting the objections of the petitioners filed under Section 5A(1) of the Act of 1894 and subsequent proceeding/award only to the extent of the petitioners’ land are hereby quashed. However, the appropriate authorities, if so desire, may proceed further from the stage of Section 5A of the Act of 1894 qua the petitioners’ lands. It is hereby clarified that the award in respect of other lands shall remain as it is and it is not being disturbed. 27.In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent sketched herein-above reserving liberty in aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).