THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28051 of 2008 Dated 26th April, 2011 Between: Dr.Koneru Chandrasekhar …Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.V.Bhanu Prakash Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. The petitioner, who is the owner of Acs.1.21 cents of land in Survey No.67/4, filed this writ petition questioning the rejection of his objections by respondent No.1 vide his order in Rc.G4.5470/07, dated 06.11.2008. The main ground on which the petitioner assailed the order of respondent No.1 is that even though respondent No.2 in his report, dated 24.09.2008, submitted under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 recommended for exclusion of the land belonging to the petitioner from the proposed acquisition, respondent No.1 failed to consider the same and rejected the objections filed by the petitioner. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the parties have invited my attention to the report of respondent No.2 submitted to respondent No.1, wherein it is inter alia stated as under: “The land measuring Ac.1.21 cents in R.S.No.67/4 owned by the second objector is situated nearer to NH.9 Byepass and by virtue of its location it may be a burden on the state exchequer. It is further submitted that in view of the reduce of beneficiaries to 46 the required extent in this case is reduced to Ac.1.39 cents from Ac.2.21 cents. If the Ac.0.45 cents in R.S.No.72 which in the shape of a nursery tank with 6 feet depth pits is also taken into consideration as the 2nd objector willingly came forward to level the land at his expense, the required extent will be Ac.1.00. In the light of the reduce of required extent to Ac.1.00, the land proposed in R.S.No.39/11A measuring Ac.1.00 may be proceed with as it is situated adjacent to the existing colony.” A perusal of the order rejecting the petitioner’s objections shows that respondent No.1 has not specifically considered the above re-produced report of respondent No.2. I am therefore of the opinion that respondent No.1 has failed to apply his mind while rejecting the objections. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed on this short ground. The impugned proceedings are set aside to the extent of the land belonging to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is directed to pass a fresh order after considering the report of respondent No.2 referred to above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 24.12.2008, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.36762 of 2008, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.36762 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.4061 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th April, 2011 VGB