THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1553 of 2007 ORDER: The 1st respondent published a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 03.06.2006, proposing to acquire an extent of Acs.4.14 cents of land, owned by the petitioner, in survey Nos.269/1B & 2 of Bheemavaram Village, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari District, for providing house sites to the weaker sections. He invoked urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A. The declaration under Section 6 was published, simultaneously on the same day. The petitioner filed W.P.No.12645 of 2006, challenging the proceedings. This Court disposed of the writ petition, through order, dated 23.06.2006, directing that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, be held. The petitioner submitted his objections within time. The 2nd respondent, who has conducted the enquiry, submitted a report to the 1st respondent. The latter, in turn, issued proceedings, dated 23.12.2006, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. This was followed by the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, on 31.12.2006. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the proceedings. The respondents filed counter-affidavit, stating, inter alia, that all the objections raised by the petitioner were dealt with in an objective manner by the respondents, and thus, no interference is warranted. Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that an important objection, viz., that the acquired land is part of the industrial zone, declared under a plan prepared by the Town Planning Department for Samalkot, was not at all taken into account by the respondents. He further contends that though it was specifically pleaded that the land is surrounded by industries on all the sides, and is prone to industrial pollution, the objection was brushed aside by a statement, which does not reflect responsibility. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that the objection as to cultivation of land, or the existence of industries, was taken note of and dealt with by the respondents in the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act. She contends that the Government owes its responsibility to ensure welfare of the citizens and even if there is any likelihood of the pollution being caused in the area that would be taken care of. This is second round of litigation for the petitioner, in relation to acquisition of his land. Earlier, W.P.No.12645 of 2006 was disposed of, by directing that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, be held. Apart from raising other grounds, the petitioner categorically stated that the land is part of the town development plan prepared by the Town Planning Department, for Samalkot and that it has been earmarked for industrial use. In addition to that, he has stated that the land is surrounded by various industries and named them. A perusal of the remarks offered by the 2nd respondent to the objection as well as the contents of the counter-affidavit discloses that except mechanically brushing aside them, the respondents did not at all bestow their attention to the seriousness thereof. Adverting to the question of pollution, the 1st respondent in his remarks submitted to, the 2nd respondent simply stated that if it comes to that, the existing industries would be closed or shifted. Such an approach reflects lack of responsibility or seriousness on the part of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent mechanically endorsed that the ground urged by the petitioner as to inclusion of the land in the Town Development Plan is untenable, since plan was not enclosed. He could have verified by making a reference to the plan. A copy of the plan has been placed before this Court. The various zones such as the industrial, and the residential, are clearly demarcated in it. The petitioner contends that his land made part of the industrial area. A specific plea in this regard is raised in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition. The reply thereto given in the counter affidavit reflects lack of responsibility and seriousness on part of the respondents. The relevant paragraph in the counter affidavit reads as under: “In reply to the averments made in para 9 of the petitioners’ affidavit, it is submitted that as per the Samalkot Town Outline Development Plan issued by the Director of Town Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the land sought to be acquired is classified for industrial use and hence no residences can be permitted in that area. But no proof in support of the contention has been filed. As there is no other suitable land is available in the village, this land has been proposed. The contentions may there be ignored.” The 2nd respondent treated himself as an adversary to the petitioner, or at least an adjudicator. He wanted the petitioner to place the map before him. Being the head of the Revenue Department in the Division, he would have access to the plan, or he could have required the petitioner to submit by issuing a written communication. He did neither and proceeded in a hyper-technical manner. This Court is of the view that apart from involvement of rights of the petitioner vis-à-vis the land, a serious matter, viz., the potential hazard to the allottees of the land, in the event of it being acquired is also involved. The matter needs to be considered in all its seriousness by respondents 1 and 2. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 31.12.2006, is set aside. Endorsement, dated 23.12.2000, made by the 2nd respondent, is also set aside. Both the respondents shall consider the aspect of the land being part of industrial area in the Town Development Plan and its having been surrounded by various industries, and deal with the same, in an objective and in dispassionate manner. Further course would depend upon the outcome of the enquiry. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.06.2010. GJ