Government ultimately took a final decision to acquire the Respondents’ land. Section 5A mandates a procedure, not a particular outcome. The landowners in this case were thus certainly guaranteed a hearing and consideration, not relief. 16. Regarding the fourth stage, the Respondents have specifically argued that since the Collector had recommended the release of 11their land and the State Government deviated from such recommendation without any valid and sufficient reasons, its decision is bad in law. In effect, their claim seems to be that the Collector’s recommendation ought to be final and binding on the Government. However, such an interpretation is at odds with the bare text of Section 5A, which states that the Collector shall “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,