Section 5A objection inquiry and industrial acquisition exemption fail where objections were considered and no basis existed to carve out land.

Section 5A objections in land acquisition are a substantive safeguard, but the challenge failed where the Collector held the inquiry, considered the objections, and excluded part of the notified land, showing that the objections were not ignored. The complaint was also weakened by the appellants' acquiescence, as they allowed the acquisition to proceed after the Section 6 declaration and raised the challenge only after the award. The request to exempt agricultural lands from acquisition was rejected because the lands formed part of a larger industrial acquisition and no justifiable ground was shown to carve them out. The acquisition was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated for want of a proper inquiry and personal hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and (ii) whether the appellants were entitled to exemption of their lands from acquisition on the ground that the lands were agricultural and not fit to be acquired for the industrial project.

Issue (i): whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated for want of a proper inquiry and personal hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: The right to file objections and be heard under Section 5A is an important safeguard in acquisition proceedings. However, the material showed that the Collector did conduct the inquiry and considered the objections; a substantial part of the notified land was excluded from acquisition, indicating that the objections were not ignored. The appellants also allowed the proceedings to continue after the Section 6 declaration and challenged the acquisition only after the award, which weakened the complaint of prejudice.

Conclusion: The challenge based on alleged non-compliance with Section 5A was rejected and the acquisition was not held invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the appellants were entitled to exemption of their lands from acquisition on the ground that the lands were agricultural and not fit to be acquired for the industrial project.

Analysis: The lands were part of a larger acquisition for an industrial focal point, and the appellants' lands were surrounded by other acquired plots intended for the same purpose. No justifiable ground was shown to carve out their lands from the acquisition or to grant the relief sought in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The claim for exemption from acquisition was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition was upheld, and the appeals failed on both substantive grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to land acquisition on the basis of Section 5A fails where the objections were in substance considered and the claimant's conduct shows acquiescence, and lands acquired for a cohesive public industrial purpose will not be exempted absent a justifiable ground.

---